Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Pensioners

Mr. Dover: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners own their own homes.

Mr. Robert Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners own their own homes.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): The latest information shows that, in 1987, 49 per cent. of pensioners owned their own homes; 45 per cent. owned their homes outright.

Mr. Dover: Does my right hon. Friend agree that pensioners have become better off in the years of Conservative government? Will he confirm that, by 1989, 85 per cent. of them had telephones, 71 per cent. had washing machines and 62 per cent. had their own cars?

Mr. Newton: Indeed, all the evidence suggests that pensioners have been becoming considerably better off in general—although, obviously, with exceptions, to whom we have tried to give additional help through the income support rate. The increases in durable ownership are very

striking, as my hon. Friend pointed out, especially in the number of those owning telephones, which has risen from just under half the total to over 85 per cent.

Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that aspiring to home ownership is a basic human instinct and that the Government have made remarkable progress in satisfying that desire? Will he take positive steps to encourage banks and building societies to make incomes and payments available td pensioners on the basis of the asset value of the homes that they occupy, once the mortgages have been repaid?

Mr. Newton: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to a type of scheme which, as he knows, has been advanced with some success in recent years. I have certainly noted his suggestion and I am sure that it will be noted outside the House, too.

Mr. Winnick: I have been informed in a parliamentary answer that two thirds of pensioners have annual incomes of less than £5,000. What justification can there be for requiring those who either own their homes or rent accommodation to pay the poll tax—a tax which is levied on them in the same way and, even more important, in equal amounts as it is levied on multi-millionaires? Is not it very odd for some Conservative Members to be so determined to retain a tax which penalises pensioners, as it penalises so many others in the community?

Mr. Newton: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is once again engaging in extravagant generalisations while completely ignoring the fact that, because the calculation of community charge benefit is based on income support rates as a threshold, and because those rates are, owing to the premiums, higher for pensioners than for most other groups in the population, pensioners receive considerable help with their community charge payments.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State accept that, although pensioners can own their own homes, it does not necessarily mean that they are wealthy? Of course, the increase in pensioners' average income is welcome, but


have not the Government a duty to do more and yet more for those who must rely on nothing more than the state pension?

Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, very few pensioners have only the state pension to live on, unless they are living in someone else's household. If they are renting accommodation, as many will be, they will receive substantial assistance through housing benefit; if they have only the state retirement pension, they are in any case likely to be in receipt of income support. The hon. Gentleman must not overplay his hand. We have been directing additional help to the least well-off pensioners—those on income support.

Benefits Agency

Mr. Waller: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes there will be in the service provided to claimants when the Benefits Agency comes into operation later this year.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Services (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Customer service will be one of the new agency's core values. The prospect is of a more dynamic organisation, more responsive to change and to the needs of local customers, which gives better value for money to the taxpayer while at the same time providing a sensitive, caring and professional service.

Mr. Waller: Does my hon. Friend agree that many benefit offices have left and continue to leave a great deal to be desired in the speed and quality of delivery of service to claimants? Will the Benefits Agency make one of its main priorities an improvement in the quality and speed of service to claimants?

Miss Widdecombe: That will be one of the agency's top priorities. When the business plan and targets are published, they will be a source of reassurance. We are aware that the most urgent need is to improve service to customers. I commend the efforts made by the Keighley local office of which I am sure my hon. Friend is aware.

Mr. Battle: Is the Minister aware that the introduction of the new agency was partly forecast by the introduction of computerisation? As computerisation has been introduced staff have been made redundant in advance of the improvement in service. The result is staff cuts in offices which has reduced the quality of service. Could that matter be considered? In Pudsey, for example, it is a serious problem.

Miss Widdecombe: On the introduction of operational strategy we gave a guarantee that there would be no compulsory redundancies and there has been none. We will consider staffing as a result of networking, although we are in consultation with all concerned. So far, reductions have been achieved through natural wastage and voluntary agreement and we hope that that will continue.

Service Men's Families

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance he has given to local offices about benefit payments to families of service men in the Gulf.

Mr. Newton: Several instructions have gone to local offices on this subject. In particular we have emphasised the importance of giving help quickly and sympathetically to people who are likely to be in stressful circumstances.

Mr. Dalyell: My general impression is that local offices have dealt sympathetically and sensitively with those in emergency, straitened circumstances arising from the Gulf. Is the special allocation which was available in September likely still be be available to those who now come back in special straitened circumstances of one kind or another?

Mr. Newton: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I, too, pay tribute to the work of our local offices and the central office at North Fylde, which deals with war pensions claims. It is a matter of satisfaction to us all.
I am not absolutely clear what the hon. Gentleman has in mind with his latter point, but he must mean the special arrangements that we made in respect of assistance with travel and resettlement for people returning from the Gulf in the immediate aftermath of the Iraqi invasion. Those arrangements remain in place.

Pensioners

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the average pensioner's income comes from occupational pensions, savings and earnings.

Mr. Newton: In 1987, 21 per cent. of the average pensioner's gross income was derived from occupational pensions, 19 per cent. from savings and investment and 7 per cent. from earnings.

Mr. Carrington: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that it is important that everybody in employment should be encouraged to make provision for their retirement? Is not the large increase in the number of people taking out personal pensions schemes to be greatly welcomed?

Mr. Newton: In a word, yes.

Dr. Reid: Should not every pensioner in Britain have two pensions: the first being the pension which the Government already give them and the second being the supplementary pension which they would receive, had not the Government, as one of their first and most scandalous acts, cut the link between pensions and earnings?
Although the Secretary of State boasted that fewer than 50 per cent. of British pensioners own their homes, will he confirm that the amount that has been lost by a pensioner couple because of cutting that link, £20 a week, is equivalent to a mortgage, even at the crucifyingly high rates of interest under this Government, of £12,500 a year? Why does not he do the decent thing, supplement the pension with the money that he has already taken away and allow many more pensioners to own their home?

Mr. Newton: The number of pensioners in Britain owning their own homes is likely to rise steadily because of the general rise in home ownership to which this Government's policies have significantly contributed, often against vigorous opposition from Opposition Members in respect of one of the main engines of that growth: the sale of council houses.
A growing number of pensioners have additional pensions, either from the additional SERPS pension or from occupational pensions or from the growth, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) referred, in personal pensions. That has happened a great deal more and a great deal faster than it would have had the policies of the Opposition remained in place.

Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most positive contributions that the Government can make to raising pensioners' living standards is to take whatever measures are necessary to curb inflation?

Mr. Newton: Yes, I do. One of the striking aspects of pensioners' incomes is the extent to which they have gained from increases in savings income during the past 10 years—whereas the average value of pensioners' savings income appears to have fallen under the Labour Government.

Mr. Meacher: Will the Minister confirm that the figures that he has given today and on other occasions detailing the rise in pensioner incomes are completely out of date because they go up only to 1987, since when the average pensioner has become poorer as a result of high inflation, high interest rates, falling dividends, falling asset prices and rising poll tax? Will he have the honesty to admit that the Government failed the pensioner 10 years ago when they broke the pension link with earnings and that the market on which the Government have since relied to increase pensioners' incomes has also failed the pensioner? Is not he ashamed that, as a result, the British pension is now much the lowest in Europe?

Mr. Newton: Let me simply give the hon. Gentleman the figures in real terms—at constant prices—for pensioners' average income from savings in 1974, 1979 and 1987, the latest year for which, as the hon. Gentleman said, figures are available. In 1974 the figure was £10·70 a week; after five years of Labour Government it had fallen to £9·10 a week; after eight years of Conservative Government it had more than doubled to £20·10 a week. If the hon. Gentleman can take any satisfaction from the record of the Government in which he was a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the DHSS—a Government who reduced pensioners' incomes from savings—I shall be somewhat surprised.

Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners have some form of second income to add to the basic state pension.

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend will be interested to hear that, in 1987, 84 per cent. of pensioners received some form of income in addition to the retirement pension and other state benefits.

Sir Anthony Durant: The whole House will agree that those figures are very encouraging. Do not they prove that we should concentrate our efforts now on pensioners in the greatest need?

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we have already directed £200 million of extra support towards poorer pensioners and why we intend to devote a further £80 million, as already announced.

Mr. O'Hara: Is the Minister aware of the situation of widows on pensions? A constituent of mine was recently

widowed and was therefore—rightly—in receipt of a widow's pension based on her husband's contributions. She inherited no occupational pension from him. She has worked and paid social security contributions all her life. In her late 50s she became unemployed and because of overlapping benefits regulations she is not entitled to any recompense for her lifetime's contributions. Would not such a widow feel cheated by a Government who can treat her in that way?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that through the safety net of income support and other benefits we try to assist those who, through no fault of their own, may not have successfully made the provision that they originally intended. The benefits are regularly uprated and reviewed and we shall continue to support such people in that way.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that from 1979 to 1987 occupational pensions rose by 77 per cent. and that they continue to rise?

Miss Widdecombe: I can confirm those figures. We should also note that because of the abolition of the earnings rule, earnings are included in that additional income.

Mr. Allen: Will the Minister endorse the thanks of the Peterborough pension group that I met this morning to Peterborough city council for salvaging the concessionary fare scheme for elderly people which had been cut by the Conservative county council? Is not that another example of local government, of whatever political party, stepping in to salvage the Government's reputation over their treatment of the elderly? Does she agree with Julie Owens, the next Labour Member of Parliament for Peterborough, that the Government have taken from the married pensioner couple £1,000 that they would have had if the pension had been linked to earnings?

Miss Widdecombe: I find it increasingly distasteful that a party that completely decimated pensioners' savings by the inflation of the 1970s should have the gall to ask us to revert to the very system which produced no more than a 3 per cent. rise whereas we have produced a 31 per cent rise in pensioners' incomes. When the hon. Gentleman is talking to pensioners and others, perhaps he would tell them the absolute truth about how the Opposition's promises will be paid for.

Child Maintenance

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average assessment for child maintenance under the current system.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): A recent survey of DSS local offices and courts found the average child maintenance assessment to be £25 a week per family.

Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend accept that Chelmsford is by no means unique in having far too many single mothers who face financial hardship because of being abandoned by the fathers? Does he agree that it is a national disgrace that only 30 per cent. of mothers receive regular maintenance payments and that the current


two-pronged approach in the House and the other place to tighten up on maintenance should go a long way towards helping mothers?

Mr. Jack: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his continuing interest in this important subject. I agree with him. It is interesting that about 10 years ago 50 per cent. of maintenance orders were honoured. Today only 30 per cent. are honoured. The Child Support Bill would redress that and would compensate the taxpayer for the £300 million bill that he has to foot because people are not honouring their maintenance obligations.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that a great deal of money would be available for child maintenance and other causes if there was a reduction in tax avoidance and tax evasion? Did he notice a recent parliamentary answer which showed that a married woman on an income of £1·8 million a day should be paying £262 million a year in income tax? Does he think that every woman in Britain with an income of £1·8 million a day should be paying income tax?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman tries to tempt me into areas that are rightly the province of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Government's tax policies have ensured that we have gained in terms of total cash revenues from income tax. That is why we have been able to make substantial increases in our social security budget, to the extent that this year we shall spend £60 billion.

Pensioners

Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what extra help has been directed to lower-income pensioners in the last two years.

Mr. Newton: We directed an extra £200 million in income-related benefits to elderly and disabled pensioners in October 1989. We will be directing a further £80 million to pensioners aged from 60 to 74 from next month. These increases total more than a quarter of a billion pounds and are in addition to the normal annual upratings.

Mr. Bowden: I am reassured by my right hon. Friend and pleased to hear that the greatest resources are being targeted to those in the greatest need. Will he confirm that Government policy will continue to provide benefits to those in the greatest need rather than blanket cover for all pensioners?

Mr. Newton: I have made it clear on a number of occasions that we stick firmly to our commitment to protect the value of the basic retirement pension. We have faithfully done that and will do so again in just over a month. It is right to recognise, as I have consistently recognised in exchanges with hon. Members, that many pensioners do not have additional savings and occupational incomes. We have deliberately sought to steer additional state help to such groups and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support.

Mr. Skinner: Are not the Government creating another form of low-income pensioners? I refer to those who have an occupational pension of, say, £10 a week as a result of the husband having worked in the pits for 40 or 50 years. If that occupational pension is increased by 50p per annum, for example, housing benefit is lost and poll tax is

increased. After two small increases to the state pension and the miners' pit pension, the widows of retired miners will be worse off than hitherto.

Mr. Newton: As with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) the hon. Gentleman may not understand fully how the benefit system works. Not the least of the advantages of the sort of increases in income support pensioner premium rates to which I referred in my main answer is that they raise the starting point for assistance with housing costs and the community charge. They feed through from pensioners on income support to those who are slightly above that level. Those who are a little above income support level are also assisted by the changes that we are making.

Family Credit

Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest figure for the number of families benefiting from family credit and the number benefiting from the predecessor scheme in 1978–79.

Mr. Jack: At the end of November 1990, the latest date for which comprehensive information is available, the family credit caseload was 324,000. This compares with 82,000 families on family income supplement in November 1978.

Mr. Amos: I congratulate my hon. Friend on being able to concentrate more resources on more people who are in real need. Will he consider the merit of abolishing child benefit and using the money to target more help to more people through that mechanism instead of giving over £1 billion to people who are very wealthy and do not need child benefit?

Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his appreciation of the help that we are giving to families with children. I remind him that on 24 October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that
child benefit … is and will remain a strong element in our policies for family support".—[Official Report, 24 October 1990; Vol. 178, c.352.]
My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister accords with that view.
My hon. Friend's supplementary question refers to the breadth of support that we are now able to give through family credit and the higher premia in income support to families with children. It is our intention to continue to help poorer families in that way.

Mr. Madden: The Minister will understand that I was surprised and delighted when I telephoned the Minister of State earlier this afternoon and found that he picked up the phone himself. I hope that his office will be able to expedite payment of family credit to one of my constituents who won an appeal recently, thereby restoring the suspension of family credit in 1989. She is now owed £2,000. I hope very much that that sum will be paid promptly.
Family credit is no substitute for proper and adequate child benefit. The protests of mothers throughout the country at the way in which child benefit has been frozen and thereby reduced in value will become deafening as we approach the next general election.

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment now on the individual case to which he referred.


If he supplies me with the details, I shall follow up the matter. It is good to know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is multi-skilled, as we all are in the Department.
It is sad that Opposition Members are prepared to rubbish a benefit that can contribute about £50 a week to 17 per cent. of those in receipt of it, while 30 per cent. receive £40 and 65 per cent. receive £20 a week. That is substantial additional income for families who are back in work—some of them are in work for the first time—and making an effort to help themselves.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my hon. Friend accept that family credit is not only available to many thousands more families than its predecessor, family income supplement, but—and just as valuable—the average payment is more than double the value of the supplement which used to be distributed?

Mr. Jack: As I said in my opening answer, the present case load is about 324,000, compared with 82,000 on family income supplement. The benefit is more generously structured and, since the start of the present campaign to increase awareness of the benefit about two weeks ago, we have already received about 10,000 telephone calls from people interested in learning more about this excellent benefit.

Social Fund

Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will review the grant element of the social fund.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): We have no plans to do so.

Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister acknowledge that people who apply for grants from the social fund are among the poorest in the land? How can he pretend that there is any fairness or equity, when offices such as the one serving most of my constituency in Erdington will consider applications for grants only under the heading of high priority, which means that the majority of those applying for grants are refused before their case is considered? Will he now study the operation of the social fund grants and loans scheme, with a view to removing the cash limits and thereby making it fairer?

Mr. Scott: Expenditure on community care grants increased by 16 per cent. compared with the same period last year, so extra resources have been devoted to the system. I understand that the hon. Gentleman's local office is able only to consider high priority cases. We monitor carefully every aspect of the social fund and its operations, and later this year we shall have the results of the York survey and research into the operation of the fund and will take it into account at the time.

Sir Robert McCrindle: My right hon. Friend is aware of my somewhat dissident view upon the social fund. Could I suggest to him that, while I have no wish to return to the extravagent single payment scheme which was in existence under the previous Government, there is a case for assessing whether we have the balance between loans and grants absolutely right? Does he agree that, by giving loans to people in this section of society—they are indeed among

the poorest in the land—we risk perpetuating the problem by not encouraging them to climb out of their difficulties and to cease to be reliant upon state benefits?

Mr. Scott: I certainly take account of what my hon. Friend says. I believe that in practice the social fund has proved to be much more flexible in giving help to the most vulnerable in our society than single payments ever were. We should not forget local authorities' responsibilities to enable people to establish or to maintain themselves within the local community.

Mr. Frank Field: As the Comptroller and Auditor General has said that the accounts that the Government submitted to him were largely worthless and meaningless, why should the House accept the Government's reassurance that the scheme is working well?

Mr. Scott: First, I think that the hon. Gentleman has somewhat exaggerated the Comptroller and Auditor General's comments and I am not surprised at that. In essence, we need to await the research findings which, as I have already said, will come out later this year. We have had a number of other reports which were mainly based upon small, unrepresentative samples. When we review the workings of the scheme we shall take account of all of that.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to be able to tell the House how much it would cost to reintroduce a grant-based system, as suggested by the Labour party?

Mr. Scott: If we had projected the rise in single payments up to the present date at the rate at which it was growing when it was abolished we would be spending more than £1·1 billion on that scheme this year.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Are not the fund's rules in urgent need of change to address the plight of mentally ill patients, discharged from hospitals? How many of them are among the 779,000 who were refused help last year? How does he respond to the National Audit Office's strong criticisms of the fund and to Saul Becker, the benefits expert at Loughborough university, who described it as "an overwhelming disaster"?

Mr. Scott: I do not accept for a single moment that anyone who was really familiar with the workings of the social fund would support that. Of course, mentally-ill and mentally-handicapped people are a priority when community care grants are considered.

Pensioners

Sir Trevor Skeet: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current value of the assets held by the average pensioner household; and what was the comparable position in real terms in 1978–79.

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we estimate that the average real value of pensioners' assets doubled between 1979 and 1987.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that beneficial answer. Will she make a comparison with France and Germany, where house ownership is less extensive than in the United Kingdom? Will she also deal with the poorer section of the United Kingdom,


principally those who are over 70, because, although their gross income is considerable, their special circumstances mean that they come off rather badly?

Miss Widdecombe: As I said in a reply a short while ago, we are aware of the need to target pensioners with special needs, particularly those in an age group in which they could not take advantage of occupational pension schemes. We also wish to target those whose savings were completely destroyed by high inflation during the Labour Administration of the 1970s. In comparison with Europe, we come out well on pensions. A far higher number of pensioners own homes and other assets than is generally the case in the rest of Europe.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that, as a result of the Government's policy of paying low pensions, pensioners want higher and higher interest rates? Is it not incongruous that pensioners' interests are the direct reverse of the interests of the Government's economic strategy?

Miss Widdecombe: As the value of pensioners' income has risen 31 per cent. under this Government, it is a little extraordinary to talk about low pensions. Pensions have kept pace with inflation and we have kept our promises to pensioners to ensure that the value of their benefits is preserved. However, we have encouraged a great deal of other pensioners' income, such as occupational pensions and personal pensions. We believe that through that encouragement, pensioners are now able better to provide for themselves while we concentrate on those who cannot do so. Only certain forms of savings will be wholly dependent on high interest rates, which are not in the general interest of the economy. I do not believe that pensioners in the hon. Gentleman's constituency would, in general, want high interest rates.

Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that the increased number of pensioners owning homes and other assets has resulted in more pensioners being able to live off their savings in recent years than there were in 1979? Page 18 of the social security expenditure report shows that, in 1979, there was 20 per cent. more reliance by pensioners living off their earnings, with the result that many of them were probably unable to retire.

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend's analysis is right. We have already heard that the value of savings has doubled. The value of income has gone up by 31 per cent. Savings take many forms and the rapid growth in occupational pensions and in the greater provision that pensioners can make for themselves allows them to retire. That is why there are now more retirements at an earlier age and less pressure on people to continue to work, than under the Labour Government of the 1970s.

Severe Weather Payments

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the number of applications for severe weather payments which have been submitted since 7 February; and how many have been granted.

Mr. Scott: Information regarding the number of claims submitted in February, and the number of payments made is not yet available, but will be placed in the Library as soon as it is.

Mrs. Ewing: Does not the Minister understand that the fact that such information is not yet available shows the shambles that exists in relation to that form of payment? The retrospective nature of those payments is inadequate because people need to be able to turn up the heat at the time of the crisis, not worry about whether they will receive the money. The £6 referred to pays for one bar of an electric fire for fewer than 100 hours. Is it not time that an automatic and continuous provision was introduced?

Mr. Scott: This is exceptional help for use in special cold weather circumstances—a top-up scheme. The income support rates already include provision for heating costs throughout the year. During the recent cold snap, fuel companies made it clear that vulnerable people should feel free to turn up their heating and that companies would be prepared to consider making arrangements for phased payments if bills turned out to be high. In practice, we have had only a short spell of cold weather so far this winter.

Invalid Care Allowance

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women are in receipt of invalid care allowance; and what was the comparable figure for 1978–79.

Mr. Scott: There were 110,100 women receiving invalid care allowance on 31 January 1991 compared with 3,600 in January 1981, the earliest year for which such information is available.

Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that spending has gone up from £4 million to £200 million during the past 10 years? Does he agree that, once again, the Government are concerned with hot money, whereas the Opposition are concerned with hot air?

Mr. Scott: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. This is an excellent benefit that delivers good levels of care to severely disabled people.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Disablement Officers

Sir David Price: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, whether there are any proposals to fund the employment of a disablement officer for every diocese.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Commissioners are not aware of any such proposals. The General Synod's board for social responsibility regularly considers issues involving the disabled. Each diocese has a social responsibility adviser.

Sir David Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that despite what he said, access for people in wheelchairs is difficult or impossible in a significant number of Anglican churches and that some vicars and bishops are singularly negative in their attitude towards trying to solve this problem?

Mr. Alison: I am aware of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers. He may not be aware that more than half our Anglican church buildings are more than 500 years old, which is the starting point of the difficulties involved in ensuring easy access. I am glad to say that all new parish churches are advised to provide access for the disabled. Having been in touch with the rector, I am glad to be able to report that access will be provided at St. James, Piccadilly for the disabled visitor in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are examples of excellence in terms of access to church buildings? Can we assume that he will do all that he can, in further consultation with those who can help, to lift the general standard up to that of the existing best?

Mr. Alison: Certainly it is the wish of dioceses and parishes to do everything possible to improve access for the disabled. All new churches are advised to provide easy access for the disabled. I repeat the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) that many Church of England churches are more than 500 years old. Their early architectural design was not intended to accommodate wheelchairs and other such aids for the disabled, even if the wheel had been heard of in those times.

Diocesan Boards of Education

Mr. Frank Field: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the revenue implications of the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure.

Mr. Alison: This is not a matter for the Church Commissioners, but I understand that the Measure is not expected to have any revenue implications.

Mr. Field: Does the Commissioner accept that, while the Measure may not have revenue implications, it has other effects? The Measure gives the diocese greater power to direct Church schools than local authorities have to direct state schools. The House would take a dim view if any diocese tried to prevent Church schools from expanding their numbers.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman will know that some of his reservations have been recorded in the ecclesiastical committee's draft report on the Measure. I am hopeful that, when the Measure is introduced in another place, the bishop who introduces it will address himself to the hon. Gentleman's anxieties and will, I hope, reassure him about them.

Archbishop of Canterbury

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what will be the salary and perquisites of the next Archbishop of Canterbury; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alison: The stipend for the next Archbishop of Canterbury will be about £41,000 a year. As is the case for all diocesan bishops, he will be provided with rent-free accommodation and an official car.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend wish the incoming archbishop every success and happiness in the important task that he is taking on? Will he invite him to dissociate himself immediately from the remarks made by the Bishop of Durham at the weekend and to express strong support for a proper victory parade and service of thanksgiving for success in the Gulf?

Mr. Alison: I do not think that Dr. Carey will be able to make a formal statement on such matters before his official enthronement in mid-April. Meanwhile, I note that at least two diocesan bishops—the Bishops of Chester and Peterborough—have dissociated themselves in the most robust terms from the comments by the Bishop of Durham and have expressed the hope that there should be such a celebration.

Redundant Churches Fund

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the budget of the redundant churches fund.

Mr. Alison: The maximum budget for the five years beginning on 1 April 1989 is £12·4 million.

Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the number of redundant and half-empty churches underlines the need for a more positive message to come from the Church in the 1990s than we heard in the 1980s?

Mr. Alison: I hope that the leadership of the new Archbishop of Canterbury, the decade of evangelism, and the striking growth in independent, charismatic, Pentecostal and Afro-Asian churches will register a significant growth in the next 10 years.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

Smoking

Mr. Amos: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what progress has been made in implementing a no-smoking policy for the protection of the Commission's employees against passive smoking.

Mr. A. J. Beith (On behalf of the House of Commons Commissioners): No-smoking areas have already been established in the Department of the Library. Their designation in other areas occupied solely by staff employed by the House of Commons Commission is a matter for individual heads of department, who are understood to be willing to establish no-smoking areas where accommodation will allow and where there is evidence of sufficient demand. The co-ordination of policy in this respect is initially a matter for the House of Commons Whitley committee.

Mr. Amos: I am grateful for that reply, but could the hon. Gentleman give me some idea when those people who want to eat and work in a smoke-free environment can do so, bearing in mind that passive smoking increases the chance of lung cancer by between 10 and 30 per cent.? People have the right to eat and work in a smoke-free environment.

Mr. Beith: I fully share the hon. Gentleman's view. Responsibility for such matters extends beyond the House


of Commons Commission which must have regard only for the staff whom it employs. So far, I am not aware that staff have asked for such facilities but not been given them. The provision of such facilities in areas occupied by Members' staff and Members themselves falls within the remit of the Services Committee.

Mr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman have a word with the Chairman of the Services Committee about refreshment facilities for Members? Many of us find it tiresome, to put it mildly, that smoking continues in the Members' Tea Room. Dare I say that a certain hon. Lady from the Opposition Benches, who shall remain nameless and who is not here now, persists in smoking small and acrid cigars in the confined space of the Members' Cafeteria.

Mr. Beith: These are clearly matters for the Services Committee. I have long used the section of the Tea Room which I understood to be a no-smoking area.

Mr. Paice: Will the hon. Gentleman also remember that just as people should have the choice of being where smoking is not allowed, other people should be allowed to exercise the right to smoke? Whatever one's individual feeling on the subject, the principle of choice should be paramount. Both groups of people should have equal opportunities in this place.

Mr. Beith: I have long held to the John Stuart Mill principle that the exercise of liberty should not interfere with the liberty of others. The House of Commons Commission tries to have regard to the needs of both groups within its staff.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Brian Wilson. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here".] Order. We need to go back to the questions on social security. Mr. Richard Page. Mr. John Wilkinson. Sir Marcus Fox. Mr. Anthony Steen. Mr. Kenneth Hind. They are not here. Mr. James Paice.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Child Maintenance

Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of a parent's gross income is estimated to be payable in maintenance under the proposals outlined in the White Paper "Children Come First."

Mr. Jack: The proportion will vary according to the individual circumstances of each case. However, in most cases maintenance payments will represent no more than about a quarter—at most a third—of an absent parent's net income and even less of gross income—nearer one fifth.

Mr. Paice: May I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and stress to him the importance that many people attach to the fact that parents, of whichever sex, cannot forgo the responsibilities of parenthood? Does my hon. Friend agree that the courts should have the power to attach whatever proportion of earnings is appropriate to support whatever family has been left behind by the absent parent?

Mr. Jack: I welcome the spirit and content of my hon. Friend's remarks, but I must correct him slightly on matters of fact. One of the objectives of the Child Support

Bill, which is being introduced in another place, is to bring under one roof all matters concerning the collection of maintenance, ultimately by 1996. It also aims to remove some of the more costly parts of present maintenance recovery operations from the courts and that is why we plan to establish a child support agency that will do just that job on a consistent and inexpensive basis.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Satellite Television

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to improve further the availability of satellite television in the Palace of Westminster.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I am seeking to ensure that the satellite television viewing facilities provided during the Gulf conflict will continue to be available to Members. Other improvements must await the outcome of our consideration of last year's report from the Services Committee on computer services for Members.

Mr. Coombs: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware that Cable News Network, an American service, has been provided to the House and the other place since the outbreak of hostilities in the Gulf. Does he agree that that sets a good precedent and that right hon. and hon. Members want to see not only American news, but a British-based news service? On that basis, is my right hon. Friend able to say whether he has yet responded to the offer made on 17 January by British Sky Broadcasting to provide a British, 24-hour news service to the Palace on a free basis?

Mr. MacGregor: There are two issues involved—the provision of some television viewing, which was available during the Gulf conflict in Interview Room J and the provision for all Members. The Services Committee has taken a positive attitude to the provision of satellite television in the House, particularly in Members' own rooms. It has recommended, as a matter of urgency, that the type and capacity of the cable needed to supply the long-term needs of the House should be identified. That is what we are in the process of doing.
On the provision of some television available to Members, we must decide exactly on which television supply in relation to the kind of facilities we were providing in Interview Room J. The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee took the view earlier that it would not be right to accept free offers from individual companies.

Mr. Ray Powell: Can the Leader of the House explain whether it would be possible for the Government to consider acquiring the lease of the London county council building opposite the House for a short term? The requirements for television facilities, Members' accommodation, a children's creche and everything else could be adequately covered if the Government considered acquiring such a short-term lease on that building.

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think we need that building to provide satellite television, the problem is the provision of cable and we are considering that and the cost thereof.


On space for the House, the hon. Gentleman will be especially aware that phases I and II of the Bridge street site are being pursued. I hope that Bridge street phase I will be complete by the end of the recess.

Recycled Stationery

Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Lord President of the Council when House of Commons writing paper and envelopes made from recycled paper will be made generally available to hon. Members.

Mr. MacGregor: A limited quantity of recycled writing paper and envelopes was ordered from HMSO on an experimental basis and has been available for issue to hon. Members from the Serjeant at Arms' stores since October last year. The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee will be considering the results of the experiment before Easter.

Mr. Rathbone: My right hon. Friend will be aware that we knew that, but is he aware that I was hoping that he would encourage bringing forward the date when that paper will be readily available, partly because it gives a good lead to others in the country and partly because of the practical fact that such paper happens to work much better in modern machines?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that point. I understand that, so far, 95 hon. Members have requested and been issued with recycled writing paper and envelopes. I was not in this post when the experiment was introduced, and I must confess that I was not aware that that paper was available. Since my hon. Friend tabled his question, I have examined that paper and it is very good. I am therefore happy to endorse what he said.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman use it before Easter?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, before Easter. The experiment will be reviewed before Easter, which is very soon, so I hope that we shall be able to reach conclusions before long.

European Standing Committees

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the operation of the European Standing Committees.

Mr. Spearing: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement concerning the operation of Standing Committees considering draft legislation or other documents originating from the European Community.

Mr. MacGregor: There have now been five debates in the European Standing Committees, three in Committee A and two in Committee B. A number of suggestions have been made to me on ways in which the operation of the Committees can be improved and I have taken steps to act on some of them, for example by giving Committee members more notice of meetings wherever possible.

Mr. Taylor: Can the Leader of the House explain why one Standing Committee has not met on three occasions in the past four weeks when there are urgent issues which the Select Committee asked us to consider? As one issue is the

report on export rebates, is not it a matter of huge urgency since the European Community will clearly break its legal limits? Is not it sad that when there are obvious and growing strong feelings in the House about smoking, the Committee is not even able to express a view on the fact that British taxpayers and others will contribute £900 million this year simply to dump high-tar tobacco on the third world and eastern Europe?

Mr. MacGregor: The tobacco issue has been raised many times in the House. On the procedure point that my hon. Friend raises, he will know that we endeavour to ensure that Standing Committees, as indeed the House, whenever recommended, discuss those issues in good time, normally before the European Council of Ministers takes decisions. Quite often, an item that is recommended for debate may not be right for a proper discussion because of the way in which progress has been made in the European Community. We endeavour to ensure that Committees debate such issues well before decisions are taken.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Leader of the House agree that some difficulties at least have been caused by Ministers' actions, the timetable of the European Council, and the nature of the proposals? Does he agree also that, as some documents now going into Committee are of great significance, for example the MacSharry proposals on the common agricultural policy, a matter that was not discussed in previous debates might be, for instance, the possible extension of a Committee session, as indeed was possible in one and a half hours on the Floor of the House, if the matter was of such importance and the attendance was such that the Chairman thought that there should be a carry-over motion? In particular, I refer to the forthcoming important debate on the common agricultural policy.

Mr. MacGregor: As I have said before, we need to review how Standing Committees are operating. Perhaps I shall wish to present specific proposals for change from time to time. We need to see how it goes, but I shall certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind.

Dr. Cunningham: The House has debated Standing Committees on two occasions. The Government must be breathing a sigh of relief that they did not proceed with their original proposal to have three of them, especially as Ministers seem to be getting the runaround from the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Just because Ministers are in difficulties, that is no excuse for saying, "We are going to have yet more changes in Standing Committees." If the Leader of the House envisages further changes will he ensure that they are published and that the House has a chance to consider them properly before they are put in place?

Mr. MacGregor: I have made it clear throughout that I am prepared to look at short-term changes and that we shall certainly have a review at the end of the summer. Some hon. Members are pressing me to make changes now. I have to strike a balance, but I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that if we come forward with further proposals for change we shall give the House time to consider them.

The Gulf

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will set up a Select Committee to consider military action in Kuwait.

Mr. MacGregor: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Dalyell: Before the Government reply in the debate on 15 March that I have been lucky enough to draw, will they reflect whether, in the light of the Al Sabah family's not returning to Kuwait as yet, in the light of the photochemical smog from the burning oil wells, which is becoming a desperate health problem, causing respiratory and other difficulties, and in the light of what appears to be happening to the Palestinians—the Kuwaitis are saying publicly that the Israelis know how to deal with the Palestinians, and are treating them very cruelly—there is not a serious case for a Select Committee? It looks as if we shall have to be in Kuwait for a very long time.

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that it would be appropriate to have a specific and separate Select Committee. It is possible for individual Select Committees to look into aspects of the issue if they wish to do so. Indeed, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will give evidence to the Defence Select Committee on Wednesday of this week. The hon. Gentleman knows that Select Committees can take up these issues. From what he said, it is clear that more than one Select Committee may be involved.

Mr. Jessel: As we normally set up Select Committees to discuss what is going wrong, and as the military action in Kuwait plainly went absolutely right, ought we not to set up a Select Committee to determine what went so disastrously wrong with the policies of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes a number of fair points, which speak for themselves.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I confess that I was indeed wrong. I forecast that only 300 oil wells would go up; actually, 900 are burning.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter may be discussed on Friday 15 March, since the hon. Gentleman has wisely chosen it as the subject for debate.

Point of Order

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that on 30 January the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment told the House that he estimated that there were 2,000 to 3,000 people sleeping rough in central London. On 22 February, the same Minister told the House that these figures were based on the whole of London—17 London boroughs. Do you, Sir, recall giving me an opportunity, by way of a private notice question, to raise this matter? On that occasion, the Minister said:
It was because we felt our figures were out of date that we asked … the voluntary organisations most experienced at dealing with rough sleepers in London to carry out a more recent count. The estimate that they produced came to 1,046 … We shall therefore use that figure to replace the earlier and out-of-date estimate."—[Official Report, 8 February 1991; Vol. 185 c.542–43.]
Have you seeen the reply, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I have not seen the reply, but, clearly, replies given by Ministers are not matters of order. They may be matters for disagreement, but what does that have to do with me?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I wondered, Mr. Speaker, whether you had received a request for permission for a statement by a Minister in the Department of the Environment, in view of the fact that the revised figure related only to seven locations in central London.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an abuse of the points of order procedure.

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL

Ordered,
That the Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Rolnick.]

Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the four motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Department of Transport (Fees) (Amendment) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Vehicle Inspectorate Trading Fund Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Central Office of Information Trading Fund Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Prevention of Terrorism

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 2Ist February, be approved.
It is 12 months since the House last considered whether the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 should be continued in force. The House will know that the senseless terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland continues. Last weekend, five people were brutally murdered—a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment by the Irish Republican Army on Friday night, and four last night in another incident. Another four were seriously injured.
During 1990 as a whole, the threat of terrorism has continued without pause. In Northern Ireland, 76 people died and 906 were injured as a result of republican and loyalist terrorism. In mainland Great Britain in 1990, there were more terrorist incidents than at any time since 1975. Three people died and 56 were injured in those incidents. Earlier in the year, the targets were predominantly military ones. The House will recall some of them: in February, a recruiting office in Halifax; in May, an Army education corps establishment in Eltham; in the same month, Sergeant Chapman was killed by a bomb in a van. In June a soldier was shot down and murdered on Lichfield station, and two others were injured. There were also attacks on the Honourable Artillery Company in London, on an Army careers office in Derby, and on the Army information office in Finchley.
In the middle of the year, civilians also became targets. There were attacks on the former houses of Lord McAlpine and Lord Armstrong, as well as on the Carlton club, the Stock Exchange and the Royal Overseas League. Sir Peter Terry was shot in the sitting room of his own house. Everyone will remember the appalling murder of Ian Gow in July. Three men died in Irish terrorist incidents on the continent of Europe.
More recently, we have had the mortar bomb attack on Downing street and the explosion at Victoria station, in which one man died and 38 were injured, some losing their limbs. On Monday of last week, a bomb was planted without warning on the main St. Albans to London railway line with what could have been appalling consequences. The thoughts and prayers of the whole House will be with all those who have suffered as a result of those terrible crimes.
However, we should also recognise the successes that we have had in the past year in disrupting terrorist activities. There is no doubt that the action taken in the autumn of last year as a result of the effective use of intelligence and good policing disrupted the activities of some terrorist groups. There have been similar successes on the continent and elsewhere. In December, two terrorists were sentenced to 30 years each for their role in the arms store in Wales. Two trials are currently taking place in Belfast and Holland. There is a trial pending in Belgium and two trials are pending here. I do not wish to say anything that might prejudice any of those cases, but they show that, as a result of detection, indictments can be brought.
The sole issue before the House is whether the prevention of terrorism Act should be continued in force for another 12 months. The fight against terrorism is a matter which unites us all. We are not here to score party political points. Terrorism is a matter which should unite us all.
I should like to explain to the House why I have concluded, as has each and every Home Secretary before me—of both the main parties—over a period of 17 years, that the prevention of terrorism Act must remain in force.
I shall deal first with the powers under the Act. The first is proscription. The first part of the Act gives the Home Secretary of the day powers to proscribe Irish terrorist organisations. The organisations that are at present proscribed are the IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army. Membership of a proscribed organisation is a serious criminal offence, with a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. I ask the House to consider what it would mean if, as some Opposition Members want, the Act should not continue in force.
The IRA and INLA are proscribed because they openly profess the use of violence to overthrow our democratic system of government. Members of those organisations are criminals, murderers and thugs who callously use violence in all its forms—death, brutality and destruction. If the Act does not continue in force, the IRA and INLA will be able to meet openly in this country and to plan their nefarious activities; to recruit new members and to raise funds as openly as other political parties. People in this country simply would not tolerate such murderous organisations being given that freedom. If we do not renew the Act tonight, the people of this country would think, with justification, that we had gone out of our minds.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does not the Secretary of State think that the ban should extend to Sinn Fein, which is part and parcel of the IRA and which the police have said is part and parcel of the IRA?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that other organisations are proscribed in Northern Ireland. Proscription does not extend to Sinn Fein. It is necessary to proscribe organisations that are openly committed to murder and to violence, to which the terrorist arm of Sinn Fein is committed. To those hon. Members who believe that we are being too fastidious about these matters, I note that the two organisations to which I have referred are also proscribed in the Republic of Ireland.
I want next to consider the powers of exclusion. Any Home Secretary would exercise such powers most carefully. I accept that in his 1987 review of the legislation Lord Colville came down on balance against that power. However, we must face the facts. There is now, and has been for a number of years, an organised campaign of intimidation and violence directed against the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That campaign is directed and controlled from the island of Ireland, north and south. The purpose of exclusion is to prevent terrorists from being able to carry out their activities in Great Britain or, in the case of those who are not British citizens, in the whole of the United Kingdom.
Of course, in an ideal world, it would be possible to bring such people before the courts charged with serious criminal offences. However, we do not live in an ideal world. Often our information comes from sources whose identities we cannot disclose without risk to their lives. We


cannot take that risk. Where we cannot charge, and there are reasonably found suspicions, we have to exclude. We have a duty to protect the public from terrorist attacks in whatever way we can.
In his latest review of the operation of the Act, Lord Colville acknowledges that exclusion cases are handled with meticulous care. Only 97 such orders are in force, a considerable reduction in the numbers in force earlier in the history of the legislation.
If a person is excluded, he or she has a right to make representations and a right to a personal interview with an independent adviser. A solicitor or legal representative may be present at the interview. The advisers are independent, and for security "reasons I will not name them, but they have no connection with the Government, the Home Office or with me except through the fact of their appointment. As Lord Colville says in his report, 18 people who had been excluded made representations to an adviser during 1990. As of today, of the 13 cases that have been completed, the adviser has upheld exclusion in 12 of them.
The third main part of the Act is concerned with the powers of arrest, examination and detention. The powers are to examine people entering Great Britain with a view to discovering whether they may be involved in terrorism; to arrest and detain on reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorism; and to detain without charge for an initial period of 48 hours and for a further period of a maximum of five days on the authority of the Secretary of State, making seven days in all.
It is alleged that the power of examination at ports is exercised in an arbitrary and indiscriminate way and that it alienates the Irish community. There is no immigration control between the island of Ireland and the mainland of Great Britain. The Act thus gives the police the only power they have to identify those entering Great Britain and to prevent terrorists from entering the mainland.
The powers are exercised by asking passengers—some, not all—a few questions of the sort that any of us may expect to answer when we cross a border or move from one country to another. Depending on the answers to those questions, the police may ask further questions and they may check the person's name against criminal and other records. If a false name is given, or if some other suspicion is raised in the officer's mind, it would be wrong to allow the passenger to go on his way before that suspicion has been removed.
Of course, I regret that passengers, British and Irish alike, may be inconvenienced, but law-abiding people understand why that inconvenience is necessary. I acknowledge, in particular, the very considerable support given to the police by Irish people, in helping to bring terrorists to justice. I have no doubt that Irish people understand why it is necessary for the police to take the action that they do.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: My right hon. Friend referred to the Act's exclusion powers. Without naming names, can he say whether those powers have been used only in respect of people suspected of being involved in Northern Ireland terrorism, or have they been used also against others?

Mr. Baker: Without naming names, I can assure my hon. Friend that those powers have been used in cases involving other than Irish terrorism.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Home Secretary may want to reflect on his reply, because exclusion orders require those who are subject to them to go to one of the six counties of Northern Ireland. Surely that power would not be used for anyone who was not from Northern Ireland or involved in Irish terrorism.

Mr. Baker: I was referring to the overall powers of the Act. I have exclusion powers, and I have used them in certain cases involving Northern Ireland terrorism. I shall be happy to clarify that point later, but I assure my hon. Friend the Member of Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) that the Secretary of State has powers of exclusion, and that they have been used in relation to certain terrorists who were not directly Irish terrorists.
Turning to the powers of examination and detention, 273 people were examined for more than an hour at ports in Great Britain, and 193 were detained, in 1990. In Northern Ireland, where the powers are used more extensively, 1,764 persons were detained, leading to 376 charges. Some Opposition Members allege that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1986 provides sufficient grounds for the arrest of a suspected terrorist, and that the prevention of terrorism Act's powers are not needed. That is wrong. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1986 contains a power of arrest on suspicion that a person has committed a serious specific offence, whereas the prevention of terrorism Act confers a power of arrest on the much wider ground of suspicion of involvement in terrorism.
There are many circumstances in which the police may have information that a particular person is involved in terrorism, but no information as to the specific offence in which he may have been involved. Without the prevention of terrorism Act, there would be no power to arrest such a person. Those who would not continue that Act in force would allow known terrorists to walk our streets—with the police powerless to intervene.
At this point, I will say a word about the Government's decision to derogate from a provision of the European convention on human rights in response to the Brogan case. As we made clear, that decision was not taken lightly but only after full consideration of possible alternatives. The derogation was made under article 15 of the convention, which allows for derogation in time of war or other public emergency. The issue is whether authority to detain a suspected terrorist for between four and seven days should be given, as at present, by the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament for his actions, or by a judge, some other person, or a tribunal. Right hon. and hon. Members may want to bear in mind that suspects can be held without charges for longer than seven days in some other European countries.
In Lord Colville's latest review of the legislation, for which the House will always be grateful, he asks whether it is now inevitable that a new tribunal should be set up to exercise that power. The Government's answer is no. We believe, as Lord Colville himself concluded in his 1987 review of the legislation—and as Lord Shackleton and Lord Jellicoe also concluded in their earlier reviews of it


—those powers are rightly exercised by the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament for his actions, and is ultimately responsible for the safety of the public.
If there are any lingering doubts about the value of those powers in the Act that is before us, I invite right hon. and hon. Members to turn to page 2 of Lord Colville's 1989 report on that legislation's operation. Referring to the extension of detention in Great Britain, particularly in relation to Scotland, paragraph 1·6 states:
In the latter case I have every reason to believe that the detention led to a substantial disruption of terrorist activities, and in all cases I am satisfied that good reasons for the order were put forward to the Secretary of State.
If hon. Members needed only one reason to support the Act, they would find it in that paragraph.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: When discussing the powers of examination, my right hon. Friend mentioned only examination at the ports. Can he confirm that the powers also embrace examination of, say, crew members on ships carrying ammunition and explosives to Eire, or the drivers of trucks carrying similar cargoes? Is it not important to deal with such people in order to contain the threat to such highly sensitive cargoes?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend has asked, in effect, about the transmission of explosives. An internal review has been carried out, on the security of explosives, and the Government are planning to tighten up the controls on their acquisition, transfer and possession. We hope to lay regulations before Parliament later in the Session which would put the proposed tighter controls into effect.
I come now to the powers to investigate terrorist funding. These provisions were introduced in 1989 and form part of the extensive armoury now available to the criminal courts on the confiscation of assets. The police increasingly see the provisions as being at the core of the fight against terrorism; yet, if the Opposition did not vote for this extension, the power would fall.
Lord Colville has uttered some strictures on the provisions, but he does not recommend that they should not be renewed. I acknowledge that the legislation is complex, and that there are differences of detail between the provisions of the three Acts, but those difliculties reflect the different nature of the problems that each of them seeks to address. The value of the provisions lies in the fact that, by clearly defining terrorist financing as a criminal offence, they enable the police to investigate it. In investigating the finance, using the special powers of investigation conferred by the Act, they can obtain information that may lead to charges.
I can, however, offer Lord Colville and the House some consolation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has recently unveiled new proposals on the confiscation of terrorist funds in Northern Ireland, in the shape of amendments to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. The amendments, if adopted, will add substantially to the powers available to the courts in Northern Ireland, and it is of course in Northern Ireland that the particular problem of terrorist racketeering is concentrated. I intend to watch very closely the effectiveness of the new powers, and, in the light of that, I shall consider whether in the future any useful improvements can be made to them.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: References to these powers form the bulk of Lord Colville's criticisms of the operation of the Act. He has

described the provisions relating to confiscation as a legislative shambles. Will the Home Secretary undertake to report to the House as soon as possible on the review on which he has embarked? It may be too soon to expect him to have produced a review himself, but, in the light of the Colville report, we cannot be wholly satisfied that the changes proposed for Northern Ireland deal adequately with the problem.

Mr. Baker: The legislation is exceedingly complex, and crosses the thresholds of three Acts. However, I shall certainly undertake to let the House know the outcome of our review. Let me emphasise that I have been advised that the powers as they stand are being used very effectively in the investigation of possible terrorist financing.

Mr. John Bowis: Lord Colville has been quoted as describing the provisions as a "shambles". Did he not go on to say specifically that, in regard to confiscation, the Bill needed more teeth? Does not this measure need more, not fewer, teeth—and not less sharp teeth?

Mr. Baker: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point. Plenty of proposals to water down the effect of the measures are floating around in public debate, but we must think of improving and enhancing them. I see that I have the support of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).

Mr. Hattersley: As the Secretary of State knows, we have already said that we shall support the tougher proposals in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. Has he considered the possibility of amending those tougher, more effective proposals so that they apply also to the United Kingdom, not simply to Northern Ireland? If so, we would certainly support him in that endeavour.

Mr. Baker: I am advised that, as the proposals are laid out, they could not be extended effectively to the United Kingdom. Before agreeing or not, I should like to see exactly how they will operate. They represent a substantial extension and it would be unusual to use this legislation as such a legislative vehicle. I am glad that there may be some agreement on that point, if not on much else, and that we may make progress. If it is possible to make these measures stricter, I am happy to consider that.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland took powers in Committee under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill to extend certain investigative powers to the rest of the United Kingdom. If the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland could extend those powers, which he has, to operations within the United Kingdom we should welcome that. It has been done already, so the Secretary of State does not need to wait and see.

Mr. Baker: I first want to see how the powers will operate because they are a substantial extension of the present powers. My advice from those who conduct investigations is that their present powers, together with the confiscation powers of this measure, give them all the powers that they need to investigate terrorist financing. It is providing a useful power as it stands now.
I turn now to recent changes in the organisation for fighting terrorism on the mainland. I have seen suggestions that we need a single, national agency for the prevention


of terrorism on the British mainland. I believe that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) called for that at the weekend. I shall remind the House of two matters about which it knows, and a third matter which I shall announce.
We already have an agency, the Metropolitan police special branch, which has the national responsibility for the collection, analysis and dissemination of intelligence about Irish republican terrorism throughout Great Britain. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield should know because it was announced last year, the head of the Metropolitan police anti-terrorist branch was appointed the national co-ordinator of Provisional IRA investigations by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
Thirdly, to increase the effectiveness of those arrangements, a small, dedicated group was created last October. It is chaired by the Metropolitan police assistant commissioner for specialist operations, who has responsibility for both the anti-terrorist and special branches. The other members are three chief constables of police forces outside London with particular responsibilities for counter-terrorism.
This is an important new development, greatly enhancing co-ordination between the Metropolitan police and provincial forces. Only the local police force can bring local knowledge to bear on the investigation of a terrorist crime within its area.
The new arrangements ensure that the special expertise of the Metropolitan police is placed at the disposal of provincial forces. That means that counter-terrorist activity has the right co-ordination at the centre.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: In the light of what the Secretary of State has just said, what liaison takes place between the Metropolitan senior police officers and Scottish police officers? He talked about provincial police forces. Although Scotland seems blessedly immune from terrorist activities committed by the Provisional IRA, we have a deep concern about these matters.

Mr. Baker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is close co-operation with the various police forces in Scotland which, as he rightly said, is so far blessedly free from the problem. I hope that it will remain so. One of the three chief constables to whom I referred is Scottish.
In the speech that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made last week—he kindly sent me a copy of it—he called for discussions between our parties so that we could have a common cause against terrorism. In that speech he did not set out any new proposals, but he continued to express the reservations that the Opposition have about the powers of exclusion and the questioning at the ports, and his reservations about the exercise of the powers of detention. His well-known opposition to this is nothing new. In fact, the latest policy document of the Labour party contains a commitment to repeal the prevention of terrorism Act. Today I have set out in rather more detail than is usual in these debates the reasons why I believe it essential that these powers be continued.
I do not doubt for one moment that the right hon. Gentlemen loathes terrorism as much as does any Conservative Member, but I must tell him that neither in his letter nor in his speech were there any concrete

proposals. The right hon. Gentleman restates his reservations. In one way or another he wants the powers to be watered down. He wills the end but denies the means. But rhetoric against terrorism is not enough; nor is invective: one has to be prepared to act. The right hon. Gentleman is willing to wound, yet afraid to strike.
The right hon. Gentleman talked in his speech about the powers of detention continuing to alienate law-abiding citizens of the United Kingdom. I find precious little evidence of that. I find law-abiding citizens of this country are alienated by the fact that terrorists place bombs in litter bins and kill innocent passers-by. They are alienated by the fact that terrorists place bombs on railway tracks. And the law-abiding citizens of this country are appalled and alienated by the fact that Members of Parliament are assassinated in their cars; and I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the law-abiding citizens of this country do not expect the Government to dismantle such powers as we do have to deal with these crimes. They expect the Government to support the police in providing them with these powers, and to support the police when they exercise them.
In his speech last year, the right hon. Gentleman talked about the resentment felt about the powers of exclusion and the questioning at the ports. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the people of this country feel a great resentment against those people—I admit that they are a very small number—who travel either from Northern Ireland or from the Republic with an intent to kill people in this island and to set up cells of terrorism and to plant bombs and to raise caches of arms. That is the resentment felt by the people of this country.
The right hon. Gentleman does not like the powers of detention either—powers that were used by Labour Home Secretaries and by Labour Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland. Not only did they use them: they justified them. Indeed, they were justified quite recently by Lord Mason of Barnsley in a debate in the House of Lords in February 1988, when Labour were in opposition:
To defeat the terrorists there is a price to pay. There is the inconvenience, irritation, annoyance with police and Special Branch Officers and the curtailment of our total freedom and civil liberties. But to combat evil men we must maintain the full legal armoury that Parliament has decreed should be available and that is what I urge my party and this House to do."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 February 1988; Vol. 493, c. 573.]
The noble Lord had responsibility, and he did not shirk it.
Of course, in those days the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook voted for these powers. He supported them. But there was a change of heart in 1982. I hope that there will be a change of heart again. The public who rely upon their representatives, Members of Parliament, to protect them will not understand or accept a proposal aimed at dismantling and weakening these powers. In a moment, the right hon. Gentleman could forge a bipartisan approach. He could get up at the Dispatch Box and say, "Such is the threat being posed by the IRA at this time that the Labour party is prepared to support the prevention of terrorism Act." This is not the time for sophistry. The signal to the country from the Labour Front Bench spokesman today should be a signal of determination, resolution, and strength.
If the Act were not renewed, who would be happy? There would be rejoicing in the ranks of the IRA. It and its friends would cheer because it would be easier for them to plan and execute their evil deeds. The whole purpose of


the IRA is to sap and weaken the resolve of the Government and the will of the British people. Let us not give the IRA the chance to claim a victory in the House.
The IRA is not succeeding. At every election, both north and south of the border, the IRA's political wing, Sinn Fein, gets fewer votes. After each vicious and wicked attack, it alienates possible allies and loses more support. What decent people would support an organisation that murders innocent people going about their business or going to work? The IRA is politically bankrupt, ethically corrupt and morally evil. It is not a party or a movement. It is a gang of murderous criminals, and it is right that the powers in the Act should be retained and used. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: We shall vote tonight against the continuation of the prevention of terrorism Act, in the same way that we have voted against it for the past eight years. The criticisms that we shall make are shared and have been publicly expressed by a wide variety of distinguished authorities, including the European Court of Justice and the General Council of the Bar. Now Lord Colville, whom the Government chose to report on the workings of the Act, has expressed reservations about the Act's two major provisions. That Lord Colville, a Government nominee, should express such strong reservations about detention and internal exile is in itself extraordinary. That the Government should not attempt to respond to their nominee's reservations, except by announcing that they do not accept them, is even more extraordinary. Therefore, we shall vote against the Act with Lord Colville's authority to support us.
I make clear my belief that the undoubted disagreements which will characterise our debate should not prevent the Home Secretary from accepting the offer that I made to him last week. He is right to say that in my speech I made no practical proposals; nor, as he rightly said, did I make any in the covering letter which asked him please to read the enclosed copy of a speech that I would make the next day. I propose to make some proposals before the end of the debate, but I repeat that nothing that is said in the debate should make the conversations and discussions that I still offer to the Government impossible or undesirable.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not seek to mislead the House. Will he confirm that Lord Colville's most recent report points to specific instances of where the Act has seriously disrupted terrorist activity and that he does not recommend getting rid of the Act but says that he has reservations—which is quite different?

Mr. Hattersley: I used the word reservations because that is Lord Colville's word. The hon. Gentleman has no need to correct me or to interrupt my speech. As he probably anticipates, I shall shortly deal with Lord Colville's criticisms of the Act. If at that time the hon. Gentleman has any doubts about the accuracy of my reports of Lord Colville's views, I shall give way to him. If he has a better interpretation of Lord Colville's criticisms, no doubt he will offer it to the House.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The right hon. Gentleman must get the matter absolutely right. Lord

Colville recommended the renewal of the Act and he cannot be quoted as an authority on reservations that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed.

Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman reads Lord Colville's report, he will see that it is impossible to think that Lord Colville supports anything other than a modified Act. Lord Colville expressed strong reservations about the powers of detention and in previous years he expressed strong reservations about exclusion orders. He described the powers to confiscate funds for the IRA and other terrorist organisations as a shambles. I shall shortly come to that. Lord Colville wants an Act that operates more efficiently and with greater justice. That is what we want and it could be obtained if the Home Secretary were prepared to enter into the discussions that I proposed. Such an Act could be passed with the unanimous agreement of the House.
I continue to hope, therefore—I shall repeat my hope at the end of my speech—that there can be some common ground on how the campaign against terrorism can be prosecuted. The Prime Minister was right to say, of course, that the Government and the Opposition are united in their determination to destroy terrorism, and to defeat it in this country. No sensible person doubts that. As the debate continues, I shall make some positive suggestions and outline steps that could be taken to promote that end. The Opposition's view—it is one which runs through the entire speech that I propose to make—is echoed by the first leader of the Daily Mail this morning, which states that changes are necessary, but before they come about the Government
should seek the maximum inter-party consensus.
Nothing that is said today—not even the bit of bravura in which the Home Secretary indulged towards the end of his speech—should prevent the possibility of consensus, agreement and bipartisanship being examined.
I am sure that the Home Secretary knows—this is riot fully understood by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who interrupted me—that bipartisanship can never be obtained by one party asserting something and expecting the other party slavishly to agree with every detail. Those who want bipartisanship on any issue must be prepared for consensus to be built around a degree of compromise. Bipartisanship will not be achieved by a take-it-or-leave-it approach.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then in this short debate I shall feel it necessary to make some progress.

Mr. Nicholls: It is clear that what the right hon. Gentleman says about the need for consensus and bipartisanship is exactly right. I am sure that all my right hon. and hon. Friends welcome that. However, he must work on the basis that his plea for bipartisanship and consensus would be a great deal more convincing if he were to say—we are dealing with legislation which a Labour Government introduced and which has been supported by Labour Oppositions in the past and by the Conservative Government—"We would support our Act tonight if we could enter into negotiations in the near future." I accept that that would be a logical course for the right hon. Gentleman to adopt, but I do not think for one moment that he will take it.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to interpret what I have to say before I say it. I shall pursue the case that I am trying to make and then the hon. Gentleman must make up his own mind in deciding whether I have met my criteria.
Our past criticisms of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act have concentrated on the denial of civil liberties which is inherent within it. We believe, of course, that in times of national danger it may be necessary to introduce special measures that would not be acceptable in normal times. However, those special measures must be judged against strict criteria, and they were laid down by Lord Jellicoe almost a decade ago when he reviewed the workings of the Act for the Government.
The two major criteria are easily described. First, are the denials of civil liberty essential to the defeat of the threat? Secondly, are the special measures, which are denials of civil liberty, effective in achieving the objects set out for them? I think that no one—no one whom I know—doubts or denies that the prevention of terrorism Act constitutes a restriction on our essential liberties. It provides for detention for up to seven days without charge and during that time many of the rights set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 are denied to the detainees. It provides for men and women to be excluded from England and Wales and required to live in the six counties of Northern Ireland.
Neither of those powers is subject to any judicial check or supervision. In both instances there are review procedures, but at the end the decision lies with the Home Secretary alone. No matter how benevolent the Home Secretary, it is intolerable that a Minister should exercise such powers. I repeat that we are not alone in making that judgment. Authorities range from the European Court of Justice to the General Council of the Bar. They have expressed their profound reservations about the principles on which the prevention of terrorism Act is based.
The criticisms have intensified with every year that the Act has remained in force. It was intended to be temporary. Indeed, it was called "temporary" and when it was brought before the House it was justified as such. No one who reads the first debate can doubt that it was intended as a brief measure which would have only a short life. What is more, no one who reads the first debate can doubt that one of the principal purposes of the Act was to reassure the British population that tough action was to be taken immediately against terrorism.

Mr. Bowis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: No. It is a short debate and I have given way several times already. I may give way again in a few moments, but first I wish to make some progress.
The reassurance that tough action would be taken was thought to be necessary in the aftermath of the Birmingham bombings, which, as we are about to discover in the Court of Appeal, produced many hasty and mistaken judgments.
The powers inherent in the Act are incompatible with a free society—the sort of society that we seek to protect against the IRA. However, a second criticism, which is often neglected, is the problems created by the Act and the way in which it now operates. An Act which is designed to give the reassurance of tough and effective action is not necessarily the same as an Act which provides for tough

and effective action. Mounting evidence exists to suggest that the prevention of terrorism Act has become counter-productive and I shall try to give some examples.
The Act creates the illusion of a campaign against terrorism. It possesses the virtue of a tough title which obscures the need to reconsider the action that we take. That was demonstrated last week in the House of Commons when the Prime Minister was asked about the attack on Downing street and the bombs at Victoria and Paddington stations, and whether they confirmed the need for the Act. The Prime Minister said that those bombs confirmed the fact that the Act was working well, and had served us well. With great respect to the Prime Minister, one could argue the case either way.
Today, the Home Secretary read a tragic and terrible list of the death and destruction caused in this country in the past year. That can be interpreted in two fashions: as the need for the prevention of terrorism Act to continue in its present form, or as evidence of the Act's failure and the need to reconsider the whole issue.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: I did not give way to the hon. Gentleman's colleague and I cannot give way to him.
On the evidence of how the Act is working, even in the pursuit of its principal objectives, it needs to be looked at again. I very much regret that the Government are not prepared to give the Act that fundamental re-examination together with other parties in the House.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The right hon. Gentleman used the word "illusion" and said that the Act was an illusion of activity. Therefore, I refer him again to the words of Lord Colville, who said that detention led to a substantial disruption of terrorist activities. What about table 7? That is not illusory. As a result of the operation of the Act last year 28 people were charged in England, Wales and Scotland and 376 in Northern Ireland—some of them with very serious offences indeed.

Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary is being less than frank with the House, as 28 people were charged but only six with terrorist offences.

Mr. Baker: So what?

Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary says, "So what" and that there were six, but if six is such a startling number I am surprised that he did not give that figure to the House honestly instead of the figure of 28.
I do not think that even the Home Secretary will seek to justify the Act because on 22 occasions offences not connected with terrorism were thrown up and prosecuted as a result. The fundamental point is not the Home Secretary's error—I am sure that it was an error and that he did not intend to deceive us—but swings and roundabouts. Of course the Act has had some effect in preventing terrorism—how extraordinary it would be if it had not. However, this afternoon we have to consider whether, on balance, it has done more to destroy terrorism or less.

Mr. Baker: rose——

Mr. Hattersley: If the Home Secretary will allow me, I shall suggest some ways in which the Act is a detriment to the objectives that he and I both seek.

Mr. Baker: I wish to correct the right hon. Gentleman because he is under a misapprehension. I referred to 28 charges listed in table 7, and 376 charges in Northern Ireland. Of the 28 charges in England, Wales and Scotland, six were for relatively minor offences relating to breaches of the Act—mainly offences against exclusion orders and other offences of that sort. The other charges were serious and grave and the right hon. Gentleman should not be so flippant. If the number were only six it would be worth while, but it is much higher than that.

Mr. Hattersley: I do seek not to be flippant but accurate. In the pursuit of accuracy, I shall read to the Home Secretary calmly—as is appropriate in such a debate—from table B of his report. It says that, in 1990, there were 193 detentions, 16 exclusion orders, six charges concerning terrorism, and 22 charges concerning other offences.

Mr. Baker: I have just explained what that means.

Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary says that he has just explained what that means, but he has not explained why he mentioned the figure of 28. However, I shall not pursue his error any further.

Mr. Baker: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand, because we have been talking about it for enough years. The six offences relate to offences under the prevention of terrorism Act, which are usually quite minor offences, such as offences against exclusion orders. The other charges relate to serious criminal offences—for example, the possession of firearms. Such serious matters can be legislated against by the Act.

Mr. Hattersley: Those are exactly the serious matters about which I have argued in the past. The Home Secretary has been kind enough to quote me as having done so——

Mr. Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way in a moment.
Given the chance, I shall argue again that such serious matters should be pursued under normal criminal law. The Home Secretary cannot have it both ways and say that he is operating a criminal law and that special powers are necessary.

Mr. Baker: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand the nature and purpose of the legislation, which, as I clearly stated, deals with cases where there is suspicion of general and terrorist activity. It does not deal with specific offences, where the criminal law operates and action can be taken. That arises from these investigations. I am staggered that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to dismantle those powers and discard them in such a cavalier way.

Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary simply reiterates his original error. I shall pursue the matter in detail, in the hope that he will come to another conclusion and answer the question that he thinks he has already answered.
What, in practical terms, is the Act supposed to do which cannot be done under criminal law? The Home Secretary urged me to turn my mind to that matter and I am doing so now. I did so last year and the previous year. I asked the Minister of State, during his wind-up speech, why criminal powers could not be used in the majority of cases and he answered with an example of his own

choosing. He referred to three men who were found in the garden of the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and told me that they had been detained under the prevention of terrorism Act. I said to the Minister of State that, were three armed men found in my garden, I would expect them to be arrested, whether a prevention of terrorism Act were in force or not. Why did not the rule apply in that case? The Minister of State then told me that the case was sub-judice and that he could not speculate any further. Because of an indiscretion by the Secretary of State for Defence, the case is sub judice no longer. Therefore, I shall ask again, hoping that the Minister of State will answer when he winds up the debate, why, if such cases were prosecuted under criminal law 10, 20 or 35 years ago, is the prevention of terrorism Act necessary?

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: I shall let the Minister of State intervene in a moment. I wish to cite another case, and he can answer the two questions together—two for the price of one.
A similar case arose in my constituency. An elderly doctor who was held under the PTA was eventually charged with possessing explosives, but was acquitted. If the police believed that she possessed explosives—a crime by any standards—why was she not held and prosecuted under normal criminal law?

Mr. John Patten: I do not know the details of the second case; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will provide me with further details. I well remember our exchange during the declining moments of the debate last year. The three people detained in the garden in Wiltshire to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred were not, as I understand it, armed. The Secretary of State was satisfied that they had been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, so he made orders excluding all three from the United Kingdom. The fact that there eventually proved to be insufficient evidence to convict them for conspiracy to murder does not mean that they were not involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
This will have to be a lengthy intervention because the right hon. Gentleman set me two lengthy tests. He asked what this Act could do that was not possible under general law. It can give the police powers to examine, detain and exclude, although after that process is completed the preference is always to use the ordinary criminal law to bring charges related to murder or explosion.

Mr. Hattersley: I think that I understand what the Minister of State is saying, and I shall quote him making the same point more starkly in Committee. That leads me to the first rational assumption that has been made over the years, which the Minister of State came near to repeating today. The PTA is used to trawl for information, rather than obtain specific convictions—undoubtedly, it was once used for the latter purpose.
In 1983, Sir Leon Brittan, then Home Secretary, was explicit about this. I asked Sir Leon:
Is he saying that it is right in a free society to detain innocent people without charge for the purpose of obtaining information from them?
Sir Leon replied:


It has been made clear … that that is a legitimate … use of the power."—[Official Report. 24 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 56.]
—[Interruption.] I see that some Conservative Members are nodding emphatically. However, since Sir Leon said that, subsequent Home Secretaries in different Governments have made it emphatically clear in the House and in Strasbourg that the PTA will not be used for trawling for information in that way. Therefore, we are left to find another intention of the special legislation. I hope that we can take it for granted that its principal purpose is not that given to the Committee by the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), who said:
under PACE the powers of arrest can only be exercised where a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed or is about to be committed.
He continued by saying that the PTA was necessary for occasions
where one cannot prove or does not have reasonable grounds to suspect the commission of a specific … offence.
If one does not have grounds to suspect the commission of a specific offence, why is the man or woman detained? Is it on reasonable grounds, a hunch, prejudice, guesswork? Fortunately, the comments of junior Ministers are not held to be the law. Were that the case and that were the official justification of the Act, every man or woman who was detained would be off to Strasbourg complaining that they had been held unreasonably, arbitrarily and unacceptably. The Minister of State wants to intervene again.

Mr. John Patten: The right hon. Gentleman has done me the favour of quoting some of the excellent words I used in Standing Committee B. I wish that the right hon. Gentlman had learnt something during the past four or five years when he has been addressing his mind to the issue. There is indeed a difference between the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the prevention of terrorism Act, which is to stop people preparing themselves for the commission or instigation of acts of terrorism. That is the difference between the two Acts. I made it clear in Committee and I am happy to do so again this afternoon.

Mr. Hattersley: It is simply silly to answer the question by being rude to me, which is the easiest thing in the world. We are discussing a serious point. There is a distinction between arresting someone on reasonable suspicion and arresting somebody when reasonable suspicion does not exist. I shall make my point—and I believe the Labour party's point—altogether clear: I am opposed to arresting people when reasonable suspicion does not exist. It turns out that the Minister is not. I do not believe that anyone who has heard what he has said today, which, to my surprise, confirmed his words in Committee, can do anything other than believe that we are now debating a most damaging erosion of our liberties. There are practical objections—involving the politics of Northern Ireland—to the practical erosion of those liberties.
I repeat without hesitation that it prejudices people in Great Britain, people abroad and people in Ireland—the men and women who should be wholly on our side—against us and against the steps that we are taking to defeat terrorism. As an example, I take the powers of detention set out in section 4 of the Act. Under those powers there is no charge, no court appearance and no consultation

with solicitors. Detainees are held on the authority of the Minister and on nothing else. That power has been ruled unlawful in the European Court. In his report in 1988, Lord Colville referred to
worrying indications about the level of charges brought as a proportion of detentions made".
Since then, the situation has got worse. In 1990, 193 persons were detained under the Act. Six or 28 of them—the Home Secretary can choose his figures—were charged with something, but the others were not. One hundred and sixty-five individuals were detained and denied access to a lawyer. They were then released without explanation or apology. There was no prosecution and no acquittal. They were simply told that, having been held without charge, they were now free to go. It is difficult to imagine the resentment which must have built up in them and in their families.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way when I have finished this point.
We argue—as the court in Strasbourg has argued—that such detention—especially if extended from 48 hours to five or seven days—is tolerable only if it is subject to a judicial examination. The Home Secretary treats the House with less than his normal courtesy when he says that in other parts of Europe individuals are held for longer under emergency powers. In other parts of Europe, individuals who are held under emergency powers are subject to court hearings. The case for holding them is heard by judges. That is what we ask of the Home Secretary and it is also what the court in Strasbourg asks of him.
If the Home Secretary were prepared to introduce a system under which a judge or judges would consider a case if the initial 48 hours had to be extended, we should examine the whole issue from a different perspective—from the perspective that the rule of law rather than the rule of ministerial fiat was operating. Lord Colville, the Home Secretary's own nominee, has reached a similar conclusion. The full recommendation of his report stated:
It is now perhaps irresistible that some new tribunal be set up to oversee these powers. It could draw on Scottish and Channel Isle methodology, but nothing except a bold new initiative seems likely to deflect a continuing divergence of procedure between the rest of Europe and ourselves.
I repeat my offer on the terms set out by Lord Colville. We are prepared to co-operate in examining the "bold new initiative" which is essential to the successful continuation of the Act.
The recommendation that I read out is not the judgment of a man who shares the complacency about the working of the Act which the Prime Minister exhibited last Thursday and which the Home Secretary echoed today.

Mr. Jones: rose——

Mr. Hattersley: I offered to give way and I shall do so.

Mr. Jones: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, not long ago many of my constituents came near to losing life or limb on the St. Albans to London railway line. The wriggling that he exhibits today can only convince them that he is interested not in the civil rights of the majority of travellers but in those of a tiny minority who are charged—or not charged—under this legislation.

Mr. Hattersley: Civil rights always apply to a tiny minority. If we say that they do not matter because they apply only to a few, we are not talking about civil rights at all. The hon. Gentleman can put it in personal terms if he wishes. I am not fully aware of the details of what happened to his constituents, but 15 years ago six of my constituents were killed in the Birmingham pub bombings. I take the view now—as I did then—that the steps that we must take against terrorism must be consistent with belief in a free society and they must be effective. What I have tried to argue today—the House will judge with what success—is that in many ways those new steps are not effective.

Mr. Bowis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: No, I must get on.
I must draw the House's attention to Lord Colville's judgment on detention and the need to inject some judicial review into the process. What the Home Secretary has uniquely done today is virtually to reject the conclusions on every major point of the report by the man whom he requested to examine the operation of the Act.

Mr. Bowis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: Very well.

Mr. Bowis: The right hon. Gentleman has referred again and again to Lord Colville. Lord Colville pointed out two things: that some 400 charges were brought and that incidents of terrorism stopped. If the right hon. Gentleman has his way tonight and the House votes down the order, we will have not an improved Act, but no Act at all. If that happened, what reassurance could the right hon. Gentleman give to my constituent who was injured as a result of the bomb at Victoria station and who may never walk again?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman's constituent must judge whether the Act is being as effective as his Member of Parliament clearly believes.
I have been meticulous in describing the words that Lord Colville used to criticise the major powers in the Act. I shall now outline, having given way for the last time—

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: rose——

Mr. Hattersley: No, I have given way for the last time.
Lord Colville reported—the Home Secretary again, disingenuously, read simply the brief words at the end of the paragraph—that the rules governing exclusion orders—part II of the Act—were meticulously observed. Of course they were; we expect no less. What the Home Secretary was less precise about, however, is the fact that Lord Colville does not believe that there should be exclusion orders. He came to that judgment three years ago—he was opposed to exclusion orders in their entirety.
The exclusion order provision, described by a previous Attorney-General as "internal exile", was equally opposed by Sir Cyril Phillips, who reported on the Act, at the Government's invitation, before Lord Colville. Sir Cyril Phillips, in masterly understatement, described exclusion orders as possessing advantages which it was
difficult to demonstrate in a convincing way".
He went on to describe them as "objectionable in principle".
Lord Colville was even more categorical. I quote from his report of 1987:
I renew my recommendation … that Part Two of the Act should not be renewed in 1988 or replaced in the new Bill".
It was, of course, replaced in the new Bill and we discuss the replacement this afternoon against the explicit, repeated advice from the man whose judgment on the Act the Government requested.
Whatever the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) may say, it is not simply the civil liberties aspect that we regard as cause for concern. Frankly, it is absurd to tell the people of Northern Ireland that they are an integral part of the United Kingdom if we then take powers to require individuals who are suspected of terrorism to leave the mainland and live in the six counties. Northern Ireland should not be a dumping ground for terrorists. If it was a simple requirement that a terrorist should return home and a Belfast terrorist was required to live in Belfast, there might be some justification for that power. Under the Act as it now stands, however, a Birmingham born and bred terrorist, a Manchester born and bred terrorist or a Mole Valley born and bred terrorist might be required to live in the six counties. When Northern Irish men and women read that provision of the Act it is not surprising that they ask, "Why do you pretend we are part of the United Kingdom with the normal rule of law running here as it runs there when this special provision is made that applies to us in a way in which it does not apply to other parts of the United Kingdom?"
I should like to refer to another aspect of Lord Colville's report—the confiscation of the proceeds of terrorism or funds built up to finance it and the prosecution of those who finance terrorism. We supported the measures when they came before the House of Commons and we must therefore share with the Government blame for what Lord Colville describes as a legislative shambles.
I repeat to the Home Secretary what I said in an intervention. Of course we shall support the proposals in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill that toughen up the law against terrorist funds. If, after advice, the Home Secretary decides that the provisions can be applied to Scotland, Wales and England, we shall support an extension. I hope that the Minister will be clear about one proposal and one issue that the Home Secretary got wrong. He said that without those powers, which, after all, were introduced only a little more than a year ago, there would be no ability on the part of the Government to act against terrorist funds. That surely cannot be right. What the Government tried to do two years ago, what we supported them in doing and what we both found to be inadequate in Lord Colville's judgment was a toughening up of the procedure and a more effective administrative way of denying terrorists the money that they want.
Clearly, under the normal law, anyone who provides money to assist in murder, destruction, arson or bombing would have to be subject to some prosecution were they apprehended and brought before the courts. That is a minor error that the Home Secretary made. The important point is that we are prepared to see the extension of the emergency powers, and if there can be a toughening of the process we should gladly vote for it and discuss it with the Home Secretary as part of the discussions that I still hope will be held.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The right hon. Gentleman implied in a letter to me last week that he would say something new today. At the beginning of his speech he said that he would


say something new today. He has said nothing new today. All his comments and the limitations that he seeks to introduce have all been well rehearsed by him and his colleagues in the past. He wishes to water down the powers in the prevention of terrorism Act because he rightly says that they impinge in some way upon civil liberties. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) said, his constituents could have had their civil liberties eroded by being killed by the action of terrorists. The right hon. Gentleman is far too cavalier in saying that it is only 22, and six and so on. We must act. If the right hon. Gentleman ever held responsibility in this role—I do not think that he ever will—he would have to act to protect public safety. He is not trying to create a bipartisan approach today. He has drifted further from the Act. He wants to dismantle, water down and weaken the Act. The people of this country will not understand him and they will not understand his case in the next general election, either.

Mr. Hattersley: Again, I urge the Home Secretary to listen to the final passage of my speech with as much calmness as he can muster, for he was uncharacteristically over eager in saying that I have made no suggestions. I am about to do that. I am about to offer to the Home Secretary five ideas. None of them is brand new, but few ideas are these days—[Interruption.] I see that there has been no change in Government policy—it is just as it ever was. We have been arguing that for the past 100 days and the Home Secretary has been denying it. I am glad for his admission that things are as they ever were.
Let me proceed with my suggestions about the Act. I have one or two suggested improvements. First, we should accept the view of the European Court and Lord Colville that detention should be extended only after the case has been reviewed by a judicial tribunal. Secondly, we should abandon exclusion orders. Thirdly, we should toughen up provisions affecting the financing of terrorism. Fourthly, we should consider the feasibility and desirability of setting up a national agency—a British intelligence bureau—to provide an effective countrywide response against terrorism. I should make it clear that we remain wholly committed to the principle of local police forces, but some threats can be dealt with only nationally. In our view, terrorism is one of them.[Interruption.] We shall extend our suggestions on special request from Conservative Members not only to No. 5 but to Nos. 5, 6 and 7.
Fifthly, we should fully and immediately introduce the Colville suggestion of video-recording of interviews of all suspects in police custody. Our proposal and the Colville proposal are completely reasonable. We should also, as Lord Colville recommends, remove internment from the statute book and introduce an independent complaints procedure for the Army.
On the basis of those five proposals I reiterate, and I shall continue to reiterate, my strong view that there is everything to be gained for the country in a demonstration of common purpose. I regret that the Home Secretary did not accept the offer today, but chose more and more as his speech went on to make the speech not of a Home Secretary but of a failed chairman of the Conservative party.[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is not

only a failed chairman of the Conservative party but a failed Secretary of State for Education and Science and a failed Secretary of State for the Environment.
I prefer to rely on the Prime Minister's assertion that we are all equally opposed to terrorism and all wish to work against it. Only the Provisional IRA has anything to lose from a common view on how terrorism can be combated. Again, if the Home Secretary comes to the idea that interparty talks would be an advantage, we are available for that purpose. It is in the national interest that they should be held, and we are available to hold them.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution. Along with my right hon. and hon. Friends, I listened to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) with total incredulity. He would have us believe, and I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he is seriously and sincerely opposed to terrorism, but nothing that he said carries conviction, and his speech seriously undermines that declaration.
I wish to make only one main observation because it is at the kernel of the debate. I accept that the overhelming majority of Opposition Members are sincere in their opposition to terrorism and in their search for means to combat and defeat terrorism. However, they undermine their argument. There is a fundamental flaw in their argument because they have failed to analyse correctly one essential aspect of terrorism. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook spoke about the Act being an erosion of civil liberties. We have heard the debate many times on the Floor of the House and in Committee, and a sense of deja vu descends on those who have previously taken part in the debate.
It is not true that the erosion of civil liberties creates the oxygen on which terrorism can thrive. The reverse is the case—terrorism thrives on the exploitation of the hallmarks of a free and liberal society. Terrorism exploits the freedom of the press, it exploits the open society, and it exploits our judicial system. Thererfore, it is absolutely essential in resisting terrorism that temporarily and in set circumstances we take the measures outlined in the Act so that we can deny terrorism that oxygen.
With respect, when Opposition Members talk in terms of an erosion of civil liberties as promoting terrorism, they are fundamentally wrong. The reverse is the case—terrorism exploits freedom, and it is by a voluntary curtailment of freedom that terrorism can be defeated.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Home Secretary began the debate by outlining the history of the terrorist outrages that this country has suffered during the 12 months since the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act was last debated. It is a tragic tale, and the tragedy continues. It is quite clear that terrorism has not been defeated. We must take all the measures that are necessary to support the fight against the lawless men and women who seek to intimidate the citizens of this country into accepting a certain political point of view. Those men and women must be pursued and defeated.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) suggests that there should be talks


between the official Opposition and the Government. He cannot reconcile himself to the view that measures that were initially placed on the statute book by a Labour Government should be continued. His speech today did not indicate that there is much to talk about. He is undoubtedly right in saying that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act has not defeated terrorism, and is not sufficient to defeat terrorism. No one could quarrel with that conclusion. However, the right hon. Gentleman's conclusion that the Act is not necessary is illogical. In drawing that conclusion, he not only is wholly mistaken but has sought systematically to misrepresent the views of Lord Colville, who has on many occasions reported on the operation of the Act. Lord Colville himself has asked questions about the effectiveness of exclusion orders, but he has not put in question his view that the Act as a whole is necessary. We are being invited by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to dispense with the Act as a whole.
During the corresponding debate last year, I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had had discussions with the authorities—in particular, the police—who are responsible for combating terrorism in Great Britain. I listened with interest to hear whether he had some answers to the points that those authorities have made to me and, no doubt, to others who have been willing to consult them about the practical consequences of revoking the provisions under which exclusion orders are made. It is a point that has not been discussed specifically by the Home Secretary in supporting the provisions.
believe that the police are wholly right in their view that exclusion orders are necessary if there is to be proper surveillance of people whose activities pose a major threat to the state. The manpower considerations that would be involved in continuing the surveillance of those who have been subject to exclusion orders if they were at liberty to wander the length and breadth of Great Britain, as well as the Province of Northern Ireland, simply could not be seriously contemplated by a responsible Secretary of State for the Home Department and it is Secretary of State for the Home Department that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook aspires to be. I can only conclude that the right hon. Gentleman has not discussed these questions with those who are responsible. Certainly, he has never brought forward their views in support of his case against exclusion orders.
However, this is not the main thrust of Lord Colville's examination of the working of the Act this year. Lord Colville has looked in particular at the provision for the review of detention, and I am glad that he has done so. There is no doubt that the provisions on detention have caused the greatest anxiety. They undoubtedly curtail fundamental rights and freedom, and they have been operated in a manner found to be in contravention of the European convention on human rights. In this regard, I refer to last year's judgment in the Brogan case. I am considerably reassured by Lord Colville's finding that the detention review procedures are effective. He believes that, at least so far as Great Britain is concerned, police officers who are responsible for the custody of people in detention act as something of a balance against those who conduct the interrogation. He rightly draws attention to the question whether the checks are as effective in Northern Ireland itself. So long as this legislation is on the statute book, the House of Commons must pay particular attention to that matter.
The review procedures are important, and in that context I hope that the interrogation tape recording experiments that have begun will be followed with great interest and great care and, if possible, extended. Recording an interview should not be inconsistent with obtaining the truth. Like Lord Colville, I believe that much depends on very careful examination of the results of the experiments, which, I think, are being carried out in Paddington.
As I have indicated, the operation of the detention provisions constitutes a violation of the European convention—a violation that led to the Government's derogating from the convention in respect of these matters. Last year, I expressed my regret—and I repeat that expression of regret now—that the Government are unwilling to consider altering the examining system in any way to bring this country within the ambit of the European convention. As Lord Colville has pointed out, a look at the experience within the criminal justice systems in Scotland and the Channel Islands should enable us to meet the strictures of the European Court of Human Rights by means of some alteration of procedures in England and Wales. Today, however, the Home Secretary was adamant—he set his face against any such alteration.
The disadvantage of the method of initiating these inquiries in England and Wales is that it is misunderstood abroad. If we are found to be in contravention of the European convention, that is regarded as being a serious matter. Yet, Lord Colville is right to draw attention to the fact that in other countries, including France, people have been held for substantially longer periods than that allowed under this Act without conclusions having been reached as to their guilt or innocence or as to whether they ought to be charged. A fair look at the record of this country, by comparison with the records of other countries, will show that we do not come out badly. That is why the Home Secretary ought to consider other ways of meeting the finding in the Brogan case.
On this occasion, Lord Colville's main purpose was to draw attention to the mixed, and sometimes conflicting, legislation dealing with the confiscation of the assets of those assisting the terrorist effort. The Home Secretary has given the House a fair account of what he intends to do by way of consideration of the points that Lord Colville has raised. Lord Colville indicates that the provisions of the Act lack teeth. That is a matter that must give rise to concern. Not everyone in this House is anxious to whittle away the powers under the Act. Some of us are anxious to see the legislation made more effective. I hope that, before many months, the Home Secretary will come back with proposals to deal with proceeds that are being diverted to assist terrorist organisations. There is no doubt that that has maintained terrorist activity more effectively than almost anything.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook appealed to the House and to the Government to treat this matter in a bipartisan way. As a Liberal Democrat, I am naturally attracted to the idea of cross-party agreement when there is a genuine meeting of minds, but the right hon. Gentleman's speech neither gave support to any new proposals nor suggested that he was entering upon the proposed discussions in a bipartisan spirit. It appeared to me that he was, quite simply, failing to face up to the reasons why this Act remains on the statute book, and


failing to recognise that all those who have had responsibility for the fight against terrorism have found that the Act has contributed materially to that fight.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook significantly misled the House about what Lord Colville said. The Home Secretary read out a passage of the report which I found persuasive. In a number of other passages, Lord Colville speaks of the effectiveness of the Act. In one passage he says, about the extension of detention in Northern Ireland, that in a number of cases admissions were made during further interrogations under extension orders. Prolonged interrogation can evidently still produce results although, in current circumstances, it is more likely that the extra period of detention is sought in order to carry out forensic, laboratory or other tests.
If such prolonged interrogation is producing results, and Lord Colville believes that it is, then that is a powerfully persuasive argument for retaining these powers.

Mr. McNamara: Lord Colville also said, in relation to Northern Ireland, that extended interrogation should be videoed. Does the hon. Gentleman support that suggestion? Does he know why the Government have rejected that part of Lord Colville's recommendations?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman must have been out of the Chamber or not listening when I spoke about that. I said that I thought that that was a valuable recommendation but I understood Lord Colville to be saying that the experiment that was being conducted in Paddington should be studied with considerable care and that it would be desirable to extend it, if possible. I do not believe that he went as far as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook also seriously misrepresented Lord Colville when he said that Lord Colville had felt that the move to set up a new tribunal to oversee these powers was now irresistible. Lord Colville did not say that. He put it in the interrogative form and the Home Secretary gave his answer. I am not happy with the Home Secretary's answer, for the reasons that I have given, but Lord Colville was nothing like as dogmatic about it as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook suggested. Throughout his commentary on Lord Colville, one had the strong sense that he was seeking to find an ally who was not there. Lord Colville has been more careful in his consideration of the effectiveness of the Act than has the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. He seems to be more moved by party political considerations than consideration of the security of the realm. I greatly regret that. This stance should not be taken by the shadow Home Secretary, nor by someone who, as a member of the Cabinet, supported the Act when it was first introduced. It is not responsible to overlook the advice that was given by Lord Mason of Barnsley as recently as 1988, to which the Home Secretary sensibly and properly referred. The House will feel that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has, once again, failed to measure up to the challenge of terrorism.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The House has been alerted to the necessity of applying its mind to the debate by the sad happenings of the past year. The awful catalogue that it was the duty of the Home Secretary to read out should put the darkest possible shadow over the Chamber and impose solemnity as we seek to tackle this problem. What happened in the past few days in this city has brought home to the House just what terrorism is really about and what it can accomplish.
Each one of us has a pass to the House which we wear outside this Chamber. That gives our identity, but the Government have not applied themselves to the fact that all our citizens should be identified. It would aid the police in the execution of their duties if, when a terrorist attack took place, those in the immediate vicinity could be identified and eliminated from their inquiries. The House needs to apply itself to that problem. If we feel that we can defend ourselves against an attack in this way, our citizens have a right to say that they should be defended in the same way.
It may be argued that such a scheme would take away civil liberties because everyone would be asked to carry an identity card, but no reasonable person could argue that. We are all identified in various ways for different affairs. Why should we not be identified in the battle against terrorism, which is taking such a sad toll of our citizens? The Home Secretary should apply his mind to this affair.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) struck an important chord when he said that, in the fight against terrorism, society has to surrender some part of its liberty. This is, of necessity, true. When a nation is at war, every citizen has to sacrifice part of his liberty. This battle with terrorism is a war. It is not fought by the rules of any Geneva convention. The soldiers who fight in it do not identify themselves. Instead, they carry on a campaign of cowardly attacks on ordinary men and women and against the forces of the Crown which seek to give law and order to, and ensure the liberties of, all citizens of this United Kingdom. We must remember what the hon. Gentleman said—we must all surrender some part of our liberty so that others may be brought to book for their offences against society.
I noticed that the Secretary of State said that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) had the will to achieve the end, but was refusing the power. It is with deep respect that I say to the Secretary of State that that is exactly what the people of Northern Ireland are saying about his Government. I am not exonerating Members on the Labour Front Bench from the charge that the Secretary of State made against them, but there are many people in Northern Ireland who would say that this Government and, indeed, Labour Governments have not had the will to win this war.
I should like to pick the Secretary of State up on what he said about Sinn Fein—indeed, I am sure that he would expect me to do so. Sinn Fein is no different from the IRA, and the IRA is no different from Sinn Fein. That is not what I say—it is what the police and the authorities say. The highlight of a Sinn Fein conference is when a masked gunman gives a report to the political party about the progress of the armed struggle.
We in Northern Ireland find it strange that Northern Ireland Office Ministers are absolutely adamant that they will not talk to Sinn Fein, because its members are IRA


men, yet they say to the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, "You have to sit in councils and carry out the business of the affairs of this Province with IRA members."

Mr. David Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct to draw attention to the hypocrisy of Northern Ireland Office Ministers in that respect. Does he agree that the approach of those Ministers is also inconsistent, because, although they say that they will not talk to Sinn Fein, through intermediaries or otherwise they have dealings with Sinn Fein people?

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman has made that point in the House and elsewhere. Thank God, I do not have to answer for Northern Ireland Office Ministers, but no doubt they will make their own reply to him.
Members of my party who serve on councils and whose loved ones have been murdered by the IRA are expected to take part in council business with men who, when the council suggested that its members should stand in silence for a moment in memory of the slain, opposed and objected to that motion while eulogising the gunmen and murderers. That is what we find strange. Of course, the Home Secretary is not in that position, because he does not have to serve on a council in Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Gentleman will, however, have to take some more advice about Sinn Fein's success. I also find it strange that on the one hand he is trying to distance Sinn Fein from the IRA while on the other hand he is trying to say that the IRA's standing can be seen from Sinn Fein's election results. He cannot have it both ways. The Secretary of State has said that Sinn Fein is losing in all elections, but it is not. The last two election tests have been the by-elections in Cookstown and Dungannon, in both of which Sinn Fein made big gains, averaging 10 per cent. Therefore, the Secretary of State was wrong to say that we are winning the war against the IRA and that the Sinn Fein vote is decreasing. We must face up to the fact that we are not winning the war.
That is why we are here today discussing emergency provisions. Although this is supposed to be an "emergency", it goes on and on, into permanency. That is cruel proof of the fact that we are not really winning the war. I cannot say to my constituents who have had their loved ones murdered that we are winning the war. I cannot say that we are winning the war to the people whom I shall be visiting this week because they do not believe it. They are not convinced that the war is being won.
I do not like to think that Northern Ireland is a dumping place for terrorists. That point was argued by Northern Ireland Members in the House when this legislation was first introduced, but, although it was well argued, that point was not answered. I do not like that fact, and I am sure that the Secretary of State knows that that is the attitude of Northern Ireland Members. However, I would tolerate that if we were making the headway against the terrorists that needs to be made. There are certain things that we shall be forced to do.
What worries me is the fact that the land border between the Republic and the United Kingdom is practically forgotten while the water border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom is treated as the border between the Republic and the rest of the United Kingdom. Many people from Northern Ireland resent the fact that, when they travel by aircraft and enter

their own country, they may be stopped and asked to sign a card which will admit them into their own country. I have to fill in such a card when I travel through Gatwick, but not when I travel through Heathrow. I can never understand that. Gatwick must be a clearing place for republican travellers and unionists must travel via Heathrow. I understand that the same happens at Luton, Liverpool and Manchester.
If signing such a card would bring us nearer to defeating terrorism, the people of Northern Ireland would be quite prepared to put up with that. However, instead we find that the land border is open. I recently asked a friend to test how many times he could cross the border without being stopped. On just one day he crossed the border 27 times but was never stopped. I ask the Home Secretary: what is the use of having an open land border and of trying to deal with terrorism only on the water border, which cannot be policed sufficiently?
There will always be people who raise the issues of human rights and civil rights and there will always be those who object if the battle against terrorism gains ground because of legislation passed in this House. However, the Secretary of State should face up to some of the matters that I have raised. Dealing with the identity of the citizens of this land would be a major step forward in dealing realistically with what could be mounting attacks from terrorists.
In conclusion, we do not know what will be the spin-off from the Iraqi defeat in the Gulf. We do not know what terrorist groups will be released upon our country. We should have the best possible measures in legislation to deal with what could be a new and mounting threat.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I want to preface my remarks by making one or two things very clear. The Secretary of State referred to attacks on people in Britain emanating from one of the proscribed organisations named in the legislation—the Provisional IRA. He rightly referred to the revulsion felt by people in this country at those attacks. However, no people were more revolted by those acts or more angry about them than Irish people living in Northern Ireland, in the Republic of Ireland and, above all, in England, Scotland and Wales. Those attacks create great emotion, but we should realise that that kind of perverted, twisted machismo for political reasons is abhorred by the vast majority in Northern Ireland.
I have witnessed not just physical injury, but other forms of injury at railway stations. For example, I have seen thousands of people who cannot get to work or home from work, or who have had to spend three or four hours travelling simply because a warped mind wanted to gain some pseudo-satisfaction from causing a false alert. Those alerts are organised by the Provisional IRA.
Each time IRA members set off a bomb and kill someone or carry out any act of violence, that is a gory—and sometimes very gory—but pathetic statement of their own failure. They are really admitting that the political objectives that they wish to achieve cannot be achieved through politics, rational argument and the power of persuasion. However, that does not help the people who are killed and injured. It does not help the


people who are bereaved. However, as legislators we should remember that, whenever an atrocity is committed, those people are admitting that they have failed.
That failure will add up. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) talked about winning the war. However, there are two wars to be won. The first involves the protection of society from terrorism. The other involves protecting the very highest standards of integrity and justice within this country, within Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That is worth fighting for.
When the IRA has gone and its failure is copper-fastened and permanent, the integrity of that system will have to be rebuilt. This is not a flaky or weak issue of civil rights, human rights or civil liberties. It involves the protection of something that is essential—the integrity of the process of law and of legislation.
When we talk of winning the war, we should remember that more than one thing is at stake. People who are pursuing political objectives through violence are forcing everyone else to derogate from the highest standards. Those people, who may not be members of the IRA—and I am not making that as a point—killed four people in County Tyrone last night. They also killed a UDR soldier in my constituency at the weekend. Those people are negating the essence of what we are doing or trying to do. They are negating the essence of political progress. They demean and debase their objective, an objective which many of us in Ireland hold very dear. We become very angry when the IRA demeans it in the spurious cause that it claims to be pursuing.
The IRA has cast a vote of no confidence in itself. IRA members, through their actions, admit that they cannot come to this forum or to any other forum and, through the rationale of their argument, try to persuade others of the validity of their case. At the end of the day, that is what politics are about. They are not about numbers; they are about the strength of one's argument and the confidence and courage that one has to put that argument if that argument is not very popular.

Dr. Godman: I have been listening intently to what the hon. Gentleman has said about these very grave matters. However, will not the isolation of the terrorists—the Provisional IRA and the extreme loyalists—be made worse if it is heightened by the decision taken by the leaders of the political parties in the six counties to come to the negotiating table with those others who are so concerned to win this war?

Mr. Mallon: I am not exactly clear about the hon. Gentleman's point. However, if I understand him correctly, I can state that I would talk and negotiate with anyone if I thought that that would save one life. My susceptibilities and sensitivities would have to take a back seat if I could passionately persuade people to end that kind of killing.
The community in which I live and from which I come, the nationalist community in South Armagh, has suffered greatly as a result of the activities of the Provisional IRA. Indeed, no community has suffered more. The people I live among understand the horror of IRA terrorism. We also know the horror of so-called loyalist terrorism, because we saw it in County Tyrone last night. We know the absolute horror of giving up the highest standards of our justice and

legal procedures so that those people can run amok. That is the weakness with this provision, because that is exactly what those people want us to do. The more things begin to crumble in terms of law and legislation, the better those people like it, because that is the kind of milieu in which they can succeed.
It is spurious to argue that, if one is opposed to the terms of emergency legislation or are critical of some of the provisions of such legislation, one is soft on terrorism. I can understand why such an argument is advanced in the House, but it has nothing to do with emergency legislation: it has to do with party politics. Frankly, as a member of a party with three representatives in the House, which will never be in government or be the official Opposition, I do not have to indulge in that kind of argument. However, it should be clearly understood that, because one is critical of legislation, that does not mean one is in any way soft on terrorism.
At the weekend I paid at least one visit, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North must do on many occasions, to see the consequences of a terrorist bomb, the loss of life and the damage that that does to the community. Let there be no media over-statement in that regard. We could also do without the kind of self-congratulation that we sometimes hear. I am critical of the legislation, and shall vote against it for the reasons that I have consistently given and will continue to give. That does not mean that I have any sympathy for terrorism or that I am in any way soft on terrorism. I probably have more reasons to be hard on it than most.
Is it possible to fight terrorism without measures such as internal exile, or without having to derogate not once but 38 times from European law—this time, in relation to article 15? Is it possible to fight terrorism without detention as a means of trawling for intelligence? There is a fundamental distinction between trawling for intelligence and arresting someone on suspicion of having committed a crime.
Is it possible to fight terrorism without any derogation from the higher standards of justice that we should all be trying to preserve? Is it possible to fight terrorism without a whole panoply of legislation that resembles a patchwork quilt—from the emergency provisions Acts and the prevention of terrorism Acts to the ad hoc legislation that comes before the House from time to time? That is like taking pieces of putty and sticking them on a crumbling wall, hoping that they will hold together. They will not.
That was the essence of the point made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He did not question the need to fight terrorism but only the means by which that should be done. He asked whether a better way could be found than derogating from article 15 or trawling for information.
Is there a need for adequate legislation that will go beyond that which currently exists? The answer must be yes, but in this country a patchwork quilt approach is taken which does not achieve what it should and which damages certain principles that we all hold dear.
The Republic of Ireland has been forced to face the same problem. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook stressed that we should look carefully at that aspect. At the end of his report, Lord Colville pointed out that terrorism not only exists in Northern Ireland but is straying into England, Scotland and Wales, as well as into the Republic. Acts of terrorism have also occurred in France, Holland and Germany. I am sure that I have omitted other


countries. Is there not some merit in the suggestion that we should consider the entire issue, in the way that we do in respect of agriculture, trade, the environment, and many other issues within the European Community? Would not that be better than sticking another piece of putty on the wall when there is an atrocity?
In the world in which we live, if the IRA's violence stops, and if loyalists' violence stops, there will still be sufficient terrorism to merit a concerted and unified approach by all the countries affected by it. I ask the Secretary of State not to dismiss that suggestion simply because it comes from the Opposition or from the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
Lord Colville made it clear in the last sentence of his report that
nothing except a bold and new initiative seems likely to deflect a continuing divergence of procedures between most of the rest of Europe and ourselves.
Something that had a European basis would be free of the inter-country, inter-communal connotations which such legislation sometimes has—and which the prevention of terrorism Act has in the eyes of many Irish people. It would override and transcend such considerations. It will not be easy to achieve, but it is a challenge which must be faced, sooner or later—in international rather than domestic terms.
I can imagine the reaction that there would be in this country and in the Republic of Ireland, France, and other countries, but the prize is much too big to throw out such a concept without giving it full consideration. There is much to be gained from starting down that road, rather than having an emergency provisions Act for Northern Ireland and a prevention of terrorism Act for England, Scotland and Wales—overlapping, interlinking, and tying in with other legislation where it suits, so that if one wants to examine that legislation one needs to have five or six Acts to hand.
I want to make reference to one or two practical aspects. An interesting study of the tape recording and video recording of police interviews was conducted for the Law Reform Commission of Canada between 1985 and 1987. One paragraph is particularly relevant:
Aside from providing a new tool for the investigative process, the police, Crown counsel and defence lawyers viewed the introduction of this technology as an improvement of the administration of justice. An accurate video tape record of police interviews largely eliminates court room conflicts over what was said and how an accused was treated. The new technology therefore helps police in gathering evidence at the same time as it adds protection to the rights of the accused.
When we go beyond the normal bounds of the law and embark on what is euphemistically called emergency legislation, we must remember to provide matching protection. I know of the practical difficulties, but there is an overriding argument for helping the police and protecting them against unfounded allegations, as well as for adding to the protection given to the accused. I ask the Secretary of State to continue apace with tape recording experiments and to move into video taping also.
I make this7 final, carping point simply because reference is made to it in Lord Colville's report. He clearly draws a distinction between the effectiveness of the police complaints procedure in England and Wales and that in the north of Ireland. Out of 407 "completed" investigations in 1990, 327 were incapable of being completed, 14 were withdrawn, and 66 were held to be not substantiated. No charges were brought by the Director of

Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland against police officers and nor did the complaints commission recommend any disciplinary charges.
I can see why those investigations would have been withdrawn; I understand why, if the essence of a case was not there, the Director of Public Prosecutions would not bring that case to court. But, given the current position in Northern Ireland, is it imaginable that not a single disciplinary charge should be possible? Does that not raise questions about police complaints procedure, and about the Police Complaints Commission?
I have complained bitterly for a long time about the composition of the commission's board and about its means of operation. Many problems could be avoided if the commission used properly the legislation made available to it by the House three years ago—one of the best and most effective pieces of legislation that we have produced. I hope that the Secretary of State will note the relevant part of Lord Colville's report and will also note the difference in tone and content between Colville's reactions to the two Police Complaints Commissions. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will get around, at some stage, to asking a very naive question: why do the police in England and Wales seem to be so much worse than those in Northern Ireland? Disciplinary charges are brought in England and Wales, but none are brought in the north of Ireland.
In the past week, I have had to deal with Army authorities informally in relation to complaints that I have made. After a time, I went back; to their credit, the authorities were able to tell me exactly what they had investigated, what they had found, what action they had taken and how they had dealt with those who had transgressed. I believe that the authorities deal fairly decently with some of the complaints that they receive, but I cannot accept that, in some circumstances, a disciplinary charge will not be brought in regard to police complaints, despite the legislation that is available.
As I have said, I shall vote against the measure. I believe that there are better ways of dealing with the problems and I must, in all honesty, suggest ways in which they could be handled more comprehensively and effectively. The kernel is in that last sentence of Lord Colville's report that I quoted. I believe that there is merit in what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, and I plead with the Government not to reject his proposal simply because it came from the Opposition.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Some of the debate has been taken up in exposing the Labour party's hypocrisy in dealing with the subject of terrorism. I do not think that it is merely a matter of party politics; it is a very important subject. There ought to be a united, multi-party policy on terrorism. The result of Labour's defection from the true course is that we have a policy in this party, in this Government and in this Parliament of containing terrorism when we ought to have,a policy of defeating it. The public insist on the defeat of terrorism. It is not enough to give them ritual denunciations of violence, and ritual avowals of dissociation from those who seek to achieve their political ends by violence. We have heard a great deal of that in this debate, and we have also heard people place considerable emphasis on civil liberties in this country as though they were endangered or threatened.


Society needs to be able to defend itself by its own self-discipline, and must be given adequate weapons to do so. That is not the case yet.
The Labour party stands convicted in that regard. After all, the initial Labour legislation on the subject—which came about simply because of explosions on the mainland—is basically the same as the measures that we are debating today. The principles are the same. There have been minor amendments; I regard them as minor, because they have not achieved their true purpose. There have been small improvements, but basically the position remains the same. Now that it is in opposition, the Labour party has changed its tune and reverted to the civil liberties argument.
I do not suggest that any Opposition Member lacks patriotism or a desire to get rid of terrorism; unfortunately, however, that is the impression that is being given to the country at large. The difficulty is that, because of an inhibition or hang-up—largely because of party politics—we have not been able to present a united front to dispose of terrorism as we have—I hope—virtually disposed of Saddam Hussein and Iraqi aggression. There was a united policy on that, the success of which was due partly to all-party support for the Government's policy. Could we not adopt such a policy on terrorism? The Labour party's own principle involved the proscription of terrorist organisations. It has been in the legislation all along, but Labour wants to repeal the relevant provision.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman is making sweeping generalisations about Labour party policy. Does he not know that all Opposition Members want all-party agreement on this matter? Is he not aware that, only last Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made a speech and wrote to the Home Secretary asking for every proposal to be on the table—for nothing to be ruled out—with the objective of securing such all-party agreement? Could an Opposition be fairer or more open-minded than that?

Mr. Stanbrook: I regard that as worthless. The position has been the same all along. We are talking about Labour legislation—a Labour Act. The Conservative party simply took it over when it came into office, and has renewed it regularly. A Labour spokesman may come along now and say, "Nothing is excluded; everything is included. We are only too willing to talk." That was not Labour's attitude at the time of the Gulf war.

Mr. Sheerman: I respect many of the views that the hon. Gentleman expresses in the House, but 16 years is a long time in politics. Opposition Members agree with his opening remarks, in which he said—I hope that he remembers this—that our efforts against terrorism were not working; that terrorism was continuing unabated, and that we needed more effective means of beating it. That is what we are saying, and that is why we want a discussion.

Mr. Stanbrook: If that were the case, the Labour party would not be trying to repeal the Act. Labour Members would be saying, "The Government are absolutely right: this is not good enough. We must add more teeth to the Act. We must get together and agree extra, positive measures." I shall not pursue the point with the hon.

Gentleman, because I happen to agree with something else that he said recently, and I propose to be nice and friendly to him later. There is always a chance that the truth will suddenly be clear, and wisdom will dawn. The hon. Gentleman already has an inkling. I can only encourage him to persuade his colleagues that their constant opposition to the legislative means provided by Governments of both parties does Labour no good whatever. It does the public no good either, and it hampers the fight against terrorism. If the Opposition were more intelligent about their programme, they would adopt a policy similar to their policy on the Gulf war, realising that opposing such policies would make them so unpopular in the country that they would be certain to lose the next election. Unfortunately, this legislation is taking the place of the Gulf war. If the Labour party continues to maintain its opposition to the main legislative weapon against terrorism, it will suffer the same reaction from the British electorate. It is not that it is not doing enough, but that it is trying to defeat something that has as respectable an origin as a Labour Home Secretary years ago—certainly 16 years ago. For 16 years the war against terrorism has continued, but it has certainly not been won. We need more efforts and positive measures.
It is no use the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) saying that he will vote against the measure because it infringes civil liberties and human rights. We are not talking about that. The only human rights that concern us are those of the victims. Positive measures are required, but we are not getting them.

Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stanbrook: I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way.
In the spirit in which we should approach terrorism, one is bound to accept that there are strong arguments against some of these provisions which perhaps could be considered in amendments and so on. Even Lord Colville gave expression to them. The exclusion principle is one of them. It is abhorrent by Executive order not subject to judicial review to cause a British citizen to stay away from part of the country. It is one of the restrictions on the liberty of the individual which the police and the Government contend is necessary for the defeat of terrorism. It is argued that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 has not been effective. Those who claim that do not know because the evidence is obtained through its operation, which is secret and cannot be revealed.

Mr. Mallon: rose——

Mr. Stanbrook: I see the hon. Gentleman pregnant with desire to intervene, but I do not want to give him an excuse to do so. I accept that it is not nice for a British citizen to be told, "You cannot stay in this part of the country. You must go back home."
On Thursday 21 February, Thames Television produced an absurd "This Week" programme. After considering the great costs of providing personal security, the programme identified one particular person who without a doubt had connections with the IRA. He was an Ulster man who had been working in Devon and was required to return to Ulster. That must be an injustice and I suppose that he is now unemployed, as the programme said, whereas previously he had had a job. The police made


that decision and an exclusion order was applied. The programme presented the case as though it were a great injustice, compared with all the money that we spend on security against terrorists and concluded that somehow it was not right: it interfered with civil liberties. If the best example of injustice that the programme could produce was one unemployed person from Northern Ireland with relatives in the IRA—which may well have been the reason why such action was taken—who was sent home, one is bound to lose faith in the balance and understanding of those who make such television programmes.
There is a point here. One hopes that such a provision is not necessary, but I am prepared to accept that if the security authorities say that it is and if behind the scenes there is ample intelligence obtained through the operation of the Act—let us not say that, because we do not know what that information is, we should not allow fishing expeditions—there is a basis for examination of these cases. No doubt a great deal of intelligence is obtained that cannot be revealed. The measure must be justified. It stands to reason that it is.
One's great complaint must be that of the general public, especially after the dreadful incidents of wholesale attack on civilians and ordinary people, including my constituents, on the concourse of Victoria station. The general public ask us to fight back against the IRA. So far they have not been satisfied with the Government's response.
I said that I agreed heartily with some recent remarks by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). Surely now is the time for us to adopt the same response to and positive measures against the IRA as the German Government used against the Baader-Meinhof. Germany had a national intelligence-gathering agency, supplied with the best men and technical equipment. It drew on sources from all over Germany and Europe and all the information was fed into a central system. It had mobile and effective teams which acted on the information thus gathered. If that is what the hon. Gentleman was advocating, I certainly agree. I hope that the Government will welcome the initiative with open arms. Of the seven ideas from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), that is the only positive one. We need a national agency.
The trouble with all our defences against criminals is that so far we have been hampered by a ramshackle police structure. We have more than 50 separate, operational, autonomous police forces. Some are co-ordinated at some level, but never nationally. Some subjects are coordinated, but not overall. In some cases the computer systems are incompatible with those of other forces. The Home Secretary talks about the efforts to fight all violent crime, especially terrorism, but I do not understand how he can be so complacent when our weapons are so inadequate and rooted in a 19th century structure. It is the hesitation to upset chief police officers and others which bedevils us and prevents us from getting the matter under control.
We must take criminal investigation, detection and the defeat of terrorism in hand. We must not talk about it in terms of co-ordination, as the Home Secretary did in his opening speech. It is not the co-ordination of intelligence gathering that is needed; it is the co-ordination of action. That is what was so effective in West Germany and we must learn that lesson.
We have been hampered too much because we have paid too little regard to the dangers which terrorism poses for a civilised society. We have paid too little regard to the demands of the public to get to grips with the problem. We have paid too little regard to the niceties of personal and civil liberties. Opposition spokesmen stand back from the problem for party political purposes. Society demands that we get ahead with this. We are not doing enough now.

Mr. David Trimble: I wish to criticise some points in the legislation, but I shall support it in the Lobby this evening because its principle is more important than its defects. Others have discussed the measure—I will not on this occasion—in the context of whether or not it is effective. The Opposition and Government Front-Bench spokesmen debated that point. On this topic I find table 8 in Lord Colville's report interesting. It sets out the number of occasions when charges, exclusion orders, removal or deportation have occurred as a percentage of the number of detentions under the prevention of terrorism Act. It is remarkable to note the consistency among the various categories: the total of effectiveness for the United Kingdom as judged in this way is about 22 per cent.; the effectiveness in dealing with international terrorism is 21 per cent.; and the effectiveness of dealing with republican terrorism is about 22 per cent. That provides a clue to the usefulness of the legislation, and it reinforces the need to retain it.
It cannot be argued that the legislation has been wholly effective. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) pointed out that we still have a serious terrorism problem. It is clear that the Act in itself is not sufficient, and I agree with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) that we should look at ways of strengthening it.
The legislation is inextricably linked with the circumstances of its introduction—as a response to the Birmingham pub bombings in 1974. I do not wish to refer directly to the cases before the courts, except to make the general point that they and other court proceedings underline the need for coolness in responding to terrorism. Because terrorism is an attack on the entire community, there will be an emotional reaction to it right across the community. That is why we need coolness when dealing with it. I noticed a letter in The Times last Saturday from Sir Frederick Lawton in which he indignantly made the point that the convictions complained about were decisions not of judges but of juries. That underlines the point that I have just made: because of the nature of terrorism and the emotional response to it, the response of the man in the street cannot be trusted.
A good case can be made for replacing juries in terrorist cases by judges. That is not to give the judges a blank cheque. Even they can err. In Northern Ireland we well know a case in which they did err; the case is currently before the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who I hope will give the go-ahead for an early re-trial. Mistakes were made because of political pressure. My comments about a cool response apply as much to politicians as to jurors. I hope that ultimately there will be an inquiry which will reveal that what we believe to be false convictions arose as a result of political interference with the course of justice and with decisions to arrest and detain people.


Eventually I hope that there will be a full judicial inquiry, although I am perhaps straying a little beyond the matter in hand.
This is a United Kingdom Act, and that is good. Its application throughout the United Kingdom should be followed in other matters. Hon. Members have already mentioned the number of different Acts dealing with terrorism in Northern Ireland—the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, to name but two. It is sometimes difficult to know the full extent of the panoply of powers in dealing with terrorism, and that is wrong. It would be far better to bring all anti-terrorism legislation together in one Act, to be applied throughout the United Kingdom.
This Act contains certain provisions which it is hoped will cut off funds for terrorism. That is good, but they have not been effective so far. Some remedies have been proposed, and we shall debate them on Wednesday—but only in a Northern Ireland context. I was appalled to hear the Home Secretary say that the Government intend to experiment in Northern Ireland to see whether the proposals will work before extending them to the rest of the country. That is a silly way to proceed, and it will not work. Everyone knows that the proposals come from the Home Office, not from the Northern Ireland Office, so it is not likely that the Government will commit themselves to providing enough resources to implement the provisions in Northern Ireland.
We should proceed on a United Kingdom basis. If the provisions to deal with funds for terrorism need strengthening, they should be strengthened for the whole United Kingdom, not by way of an experiment in Northern Ireland that is likely to produce an uncertain response.
As we have said in other contexts, it is illogical to proscribe some organisations in Northern Ireland but not in Great Britain. People travel between the two countries, and organisations that are proscribed should be proscribed throughout the United Kingdom. There is an argument for considering the shortlist in this Act beside the longer list in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, under which eight organisations are proscribed. It goes without saying that I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North about Sinn Fein. It makes no sense to proscribe the IRA yet not to proscribe one part of it, which is what Sinn Fein is, as everyone knows. The pretence that there is a difference is made only for political purposes, and that qualifies and casts doubt on the Government's commitment to anti-terrorist measures.
The Home Secretary will know that we are critical of exclusion orders. It is not right that people should be dumped in Northern Ireland. The orders are wrong in principle. What the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said about them was inaccurate. There is no danger under the legislation of persons born and bred in Birmingham being dumped in Northern Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman casts his eye over section 5(4), he will no doubt be happy to correct his comments.
We should like exclusion orders to go, but only if the frontier is dealt with seriously. Controls should be moved

from the Irish sea to the frontier. The hon. Member for Antrim, North identified the idiocy of having an open frontier between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, and of trying to control the frontier at another point further down the sea. This is due in part to laziness on the part of the Government and officials. They think it easier to carry out checks at ports and airports than to make the comparatively small effort to treat the frontier seriously. The Government should realise that their laziness sends the wrong message to the terrorists. That message is that the Government do not really think that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and that their commitment to the defeat of terrorism and the maintenance of the Union is contingent and half-hearted. That only encourages terrorism.
The paradox is that the exclusion order procedure only makes matters worse. I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not present to hear me say that the terminology that he used can only encourage terrorism. I was appalled to hear him say that the law-abiding citizens of this country were appalled by a number of terrorist incidents, all of which had happened in England. It was perfectly clear from the context that in his mind "this country" means England and nothing beyond it. In other parts of his speech he referred to Great Britain and Ireland, to the Irish people, to Ireland north and south. It is clear that in his mind there is a mental blind drawn down the Irish sea. That, too, is an encouragement to terrorism and it sends out a signal to the IRA to continue its offensive because the Home Secretary is not committed to the Union and he will give way to them at some point in the future. That is how his speech will be read.
The Home Secretary should reflect carefully on this matter, but I am not surprised at his attitude when I recall that, with his literary pretensions, he savagely censored "The Boyne Water" in his anthology.

Mr. John Patten: I have not read the literary savagery to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall look at it with some interest later.[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary an injustice. I have checked the text and found that one of the first sentences uttered by my right hon. Friend in his speech refers to the appalling incidents that the Province suffered over the weekend. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, I know the Province well and I feel strongly that it is wrong for people in the Province not to recognise the major contribution that everyone in the United Kingdom is trying to make to keep the peace in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, but I am sorry to say that they do not meet the point. I acknowledge that in his speech the Home Secretary spoke about terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland. However, in part of his speech he spoke about "this country" in terms which did not include Northern Ireland and he was therefore sending the wrong message. Perhaps the Home Secretary's mistake is unconscious, in which case I hope that he will think about it and correct it and will not again encourage terrorism in that way.
Detention and its extension have given rise to some legal difficulty in terms of the European convention. The ability to extend the period of detention to seven days is important, and that is substantiated on page 3 of Lord Colville's report, which refers to detentions in Northern Ireland. Lord Colville says that 166, or 37 per cent., of


those subject to extensions were charged. If one looks elsewhere at the number of people charged out of the total detained, one notes a significant increase—more than double—in the number of charges of persons for whom the period of detention was extended. That statistic alone shows the need to have the ability to extend the period up to seven days.
The problem arises because of the European convention and the way in which it is drafted. It operates on a Europe-wide basis. While there was a significant British input to its drafting, it was largely drafted by and interpreted by civil lawyers rather than common law lawyers. The civil law system is significantly different from the common law system. Some form of judicial involvement in detention and the building of a case against an accused is common in civil law but not in common law. That is our difficulty.
The Home Secretary was right to refer to cases in France where people are effectively detained for much longer than here, but there is no problem there because in France the juge d'instruction is involved in the proceedings. However, he does not play what we would regard as a wholly judicial role, although he is to some extent involved in the interrogation process and in the gathering of evidence. To some extent, he carries out what we—by "we", of course, I mean people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—would regard as a police function. The position in Scotland is different because the procurator fiscal is based on the concept of civil law and, to a certain extent, he is involved in what might otherwise be regarded as police work.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the important role of the procurator fiscal, who is in every sense of the word concerned with criminal investigations. That fine experience has been followed in England through recent legislation.

Mr. Trimble: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his elucidation. This is a complex matter and the difficulty is in finding a way to graft on to the common law accusatorial system the inquisitorial procedures of civil law. There is a way out which we have suggested in other circumstances, and it would solve the problem in Northern Ireland. It is that after an appropriate period of two, three or four days, or whatever it might be, an application could be made in chambers to a resident magistrate. Provided the resident magistrate did not treat that as full judicial proceedings and took account of the nature of the information and intelligence available to the investigating authorities, he would provide the necessary "judicial" input to satisfy the European convention.
That solution is not available generally in England and Wales, which retain lay magistrates and, of course, it would be impossible to involve them in such a system. That might be an argument for dispensing with lay magistrates and having what we call resident magistrates, the term for which here is stipendiary magistrates. The Government may want to consider that.
It may be necessary to consider extending the Scottish procurator fiscal system, or something analogous, to the rest of the United Kingdom. That option was examined in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s in the MacDermott report into the prosecution of offenders. I am sorry to say that it was turned down solely on fiscal grounds, when it was said that it would cost too much to introduce

examining magistrates. The proposal was supported by a range of people and may be worth looking at again because that could be the way to solve the problem. There is no easy way to solve it, and those who understand the situation in the United Kingdom and in Europe should not be impatient if it takes some time to work out a solution. A certain amount of heat is generated about detention by people who do not fully appreciate the intricacies of the problem.
Reference has been made to the videoing of interviews. We should do what Lord Colville has reported elsewhere and allow experiments to be conducted by the police to see whether it is feasible. Lord Colville's reports on that and on associated legislation are useful. They provide a valuable way to make information available to the public and are clearly a valuable test of the efficacy of the legislation. One has only to look at the way in which hon. Members have appealed to Lord Colville's report and the eagerness with which he has been prayed in aid, sometimes not altogether properly, to show how much the reports are appreciated.
Lord Colville's useful work is a substitute for a proper way of looking at the legislation, which I hope can be done eventually. A debate once a year on the prevention of terrorism Act and an associated debate later this week on the emergency provisions legislation are no substitute for proper parliamentary supervision and control of such exceptional legislation. The powers are properly exceptional. It is right that they should exist, but there should be some effective means of supervision. Because of the nature of the powers, I do not think that we can have effective judicial supervision of them, and an attempt to over-judicialise this procedure is wrong.
We should look at the prospect of having a special procedure, perhaps a Select Committee of Privy Councillors and senior hon. Members charged with carrying out the function carried out by Lord Colville. It would also investigate annually or perhaps more often than that. That might be more useful than the constant. pursuit of toughening-up powers for complaints bodies and so on. It would certainly have the advantage of requiring hon. Members seriously to address the detail of the legislation.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) gave an eloquent denunciation of recent terrorist incidents in England and Wales. He said that by their acts those terrorists are saying that their objects cannot be achieved politically. He is quite right. Those objects cannot be achieved by contesting elections and obtaining majorities. However, the terrorists expect to succeed politically, but through the weakness of Governments and particularly of English Ministers. In that respect the Government have repeatedly encouraged terrorism, not just by the casual and careless use of language that I criticised earlier, but in the way in which they have allowed terrorism to set the political agenda. I refer here to certain ill-judged initiatives that have been taken over the years. That is not only my criticism. An editorial in The Times on Saturday week made exactly the same criticism.
The frequency with which the Government have given in to terrorism has in turn created a lack of confidence in some sections of the community in Northern Ireland. That lack of confidence has led some people wrongly to resort to what they call counter terrorism. That, of course, is wrong. The Unionist community has effectively repudiated or rejected such people and such action by joining or


supporting the security forces and by providing them with the necessary information. The high success rate of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in dealing with such terrorism—some 90 per cent. plus—is evidence of that. When dealing with Republican terrorism, the success rate is only 13 to 15 per cent. That points to the difference in the political response.
The party of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, the Social Democratic and Labour party, is extremely good at the verbal condemnation of terrorism. Unfortunately, that is not followed through by appropriate action to support and assist the security forces. The role of the hon. Gentleman's party in these matters is often that of a channel by which political concessions extorted by IRA terrorism are made available to Irish nationalism. That role is wrong, as are the actions of Government in making such concessions. None of these matters, however important though they are, will prevent us from supporting the proposed legislation, flawed though it may be, if the House divides this evening.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Members of the public who listen to the debate will do so with complete amazement. They will have heard the Labour party's spokesman in this matter, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), make a speech which I consider almost incredible.
The right hon Gentleman, having said that no sensible person can doubt that the Opposition are against terrorism, then sought to dismantle the legislation that is designed to combat terrorism. It is true that the Opposition speak against terrorism, but speech is not enough. We are dealing with matters where there has to be action—
By their fruits ye shall know them.
The Opposition want to dismantle the Government's action in protecting the nation from terrorism, and their position is entirely untenable. A Labour Government thought that action was necessary. In 1974, and again in 1976, they brought forward the current legislation, or legislation that was almost identical. They took against the relevant legislation only when they went into opposition and the Conservative Government took over the reins of power and introduced the current legislation. Since then, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has described the legislation to which he was a party in introducing as draconian. That word is intended to diminish the legislation's importance.
Had the position changed—had there been no terrorism since the Labour Government left office—there would be justification for the Opposition's stand. Unfortunately, since 1982 when the Opposition changed their mind, the need for this sort of legislation has grown, not diminished. We have had the Brighton bombing and the murders occasioned there. We have had the avoidance of the summer bombing campaign in British holiday resorts. In the past year we have had the Deal slaughter, the Victoria station bomb, the Downing street bombs, the St. Albans bomb, the killing in West Germany, the bomb in Colchester, the bomb in Kensington, the shooting of Sir Peter Terry, the assassination of Ian Gow, the shooting of the soldier at Lichfield station, the bomb at Derby and the

bombs at Leicester and Halifax. In the past year, terrorist activity has killed 80 in the United Kingdom, with a further 1,000 being injured. Most of the deaths and injuries have taken place in Northern Ireland. How can it be said that the time has come to go against what the then Labour Government thought was important in 1974 and 1976? Why action then but no action now?
The speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was pathetic. He struggled to find reasons why the legislation should not be renewed. He was flailing for something on which to cling to avoid the accusation of total absurdity. He claimed that Lord Colville had reservations about the Act, even though Lord Colville had no criticism of extended detention or of exclusion. Lord Colville never once suggested that the legislation should not be renewed. How can it be that an intelligent political party—one of the two great political parties in the land—allows its spokesman on home affairs to say, "My position is justified by Lord Colville", even when Lord Colville does not support him?
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that the General Council of the Bar has reservations. That may be so, but the General Council does not say that the powers should not be renewed. How is that a justification for doing what the Labour party is seeking to do tonight, which is to defeat the renewal order?
The only friends whom the Opposition will have in their attempts to stop the renewal of the current legislation are the terrorists and those who say that normal security procedures should exist even if that means more terrorism.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook spoke of the erosion of liberties. What about the erosion of the lives of slaughtered people? What about the people who die because of terrorism? The right hon. Gentleman cited the Brogan case, during which it was said that suspects should be brought more promptly before a judicial authority. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) put his finger on the difference between the judicial authority in European legal systems and our judicial authority. In our process, that authority comes on to the scene much later and yet our system is supposed to be much better than many of the systems that prevail elsewhere in Europe. Apart from that, European judges have not experienced terrorism on the scale that we have in Britain. We resent it when they decide that changes should be made according to their lights when they have not had to experience the misery that we have suffered here, and especially in Northern Ireland.
Why does not the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook choose to rely upon, to be inspired by and to be supported instead by the words of his predecessor, Lord Mason of Barnsley, if he really wants common ground? Lord Mason said:
… some liberty must be sacrificed in the defence of liberty, insiduous though that may be. It is the price that must be paid in defence of our democracy … Nothing gives the IRA more joy and some encouragement than to see a divided House, and especially the image created by some within Parliament of seeming to be too protective of the terrorists and their political allies, rather than wishing their destruction."—[Officiol Report, House of Lords, 13 February 1989; Vol. 504, c. 33–4.]
That is the sort of guidance that Opposition Members should give. If they chose to adopt that approach, we would have common cause.
It is clear that if we dismantle our defences against terrorism the chances of catching the Victoria station


bombers will be less, so will our chances of catching the Downing street bombers, those who tried to assassinate Sir Peter Terry, those who killed the Lichfield soldier, those who planted bombs in Derby, Leicester and Halifax and those who slaughtered in Deal. That is why those who are watching our proceedings on television or hearing them on the radio will be utterly amazed.
What does the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, say? I expect that his words will be repeated by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who will reply from the Opposition Front Bench. The Opposition are saying, in effect, "Let us talk. Let us make common ground against terrorism." Yet they have nothing to talk about. They have been saying, "Let us talk" for years. They have been advocating the making of common ground for years. We have been listening for their ideas for alternative action—not alternative words—but what have they brought forward? What practical policies are they putting forward for beating the terrorists?
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook gave a list and seems to think that that is positive action. He asked us to accept the European Court's view that the judicial process should engage sooner than it does. He asked us to scrap exclusion orders. He suggested a review of the financial provisions and asked us to consider a national agency to deal with terrorism. He suggested that we have tape-recorded interviews and an independent complaints procedure. Those may or may not be very sound and sensible ideas. It may be worth while to introduce such provisions in the future, but they are not reasons for dismantling present legislation. They would water it down, make it easier for the terrorist and not more difficult. That is why the British people will listen to this debate with utter and complete amazement.
There is no alternative to the Act. That is because it has been reasonably effective and why the Opposition cannot suggest an alternative. The Act is the only common cause against terrorism and the Opposition should support it.
After the Carlton club bombing on 26 June last year the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said:
In a free society it is never possible to provide complete protection against indiscriminate terrorism, but clearly we must do all that we can to reduce the chances of such criminal lunacy killing and maiming innocent men and women."—[Official Report, 26 June 1990; Vol 175, c. 186.]
Is failing to renew this order, as the Opposition will seek to do by voting against it tonight, doing all that they can to defeat terrorism?
Until they support this legislation, the Opposition will have placed themselves in an absurd and impossible position. The country will punish them for it, and rightly so, because it proves that they are totally irresponsible and unready for power.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Opposition Members do not have to prove to anyone that we are firmly committed to beating terrorism and that we also mourn the deaths of those killed at the hands of terrorists: Ian Gow, who was a respected Member of this House; and David Corner, who was a loved and valued member of his community and who was tragically killed at Victoria station. The tragic list of deaths, near-deaths and mutilations in recent years and the recent intensification of terrorism have led us to the conclusion, after objective

consideration of the facts and not on a party-political basis, that the House and successive Governments have failed to beat terrorists.
The reason why my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made an offer, which would be judged by most fair-minded commentators as honest and positive, in his speech last Tuesday and in his letter to the Home Secretary was that we believe that the Act has been a failure. People in this country know that we have failed to beat terrorists. Waving the prevention of terrorism Act around has not beaten terrorism. We introduced the prevention of terrorism Act, but, on mature reflection after 16 years of its operation, we have come to the conclusion that we owe it to the people of this country and to their protection to reconsider an Act which gives the semblance of prevention of terrorism rather than the reality.
It gives us no pride to say that terrorists are not being beaten. Opposition Members want them to be beaten. In one part of his speech the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) agreed that we need more effective action and that very often the prevention of terrorism Act is an excuse for not acting more positively on an all-party basis. Anyone who tries to argue that we do not oppose terrorism because we vote against the Act tonight is simply making mischief and trying to score cheap political points.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sheerman: No, I shall not give way. During the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook the Conservative Benches were full of hon. Members who disappeared after it. Instead of a silence, which would have paid respect to those who died at the hands of terrorist bombs, Conservative Members have treated this as a cheap political debate and so I shall not give way to any cheap politicians on the Conservative side of the House.

Mr. Tracey: This is a serious point.

Mr. Sheerman: I shall not give way to any hon. Member on the Conservative side of the House this afternoon.
It is crucial that the fight against terrorism is not politicised. On this issue, more than on any other, it is important for us to find common ground on which we can build a consensus and a determination which will see the terrorist off.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sheerman: No, I have said that I shall not.
We shall vote against the prevention of terrorism Act not merely because it does not work and because it undermines the quality of justice in this country—justice which we have always been proud of—but because it feeds terrorism and gives terrorists ammunition with which to win support at home and abroad—support which we must cut off.
How must it look to Irish Americans who are asked to support Noraid and the like when they are told that Britain has legislation that breaks the European convention on human rights and enables people to be banished from one part of the country to another without any explanation and which denies the suspect access to legal advice not merely for 48 hours but for up to seven days?
The unjust appearance of the Act is compounded by its operation. Since the first prevention of terrorism Act came into force in 1974, more than 80 per cent. of those arrested have been released without charge and the percentage of those convicted under the Act is even less than 20 per cent. In 1990, out of 193 people held under the Act, only eight were convicted: seven were fined for non co-operation at a port or airport and one for a broken exclusion order. I cannot believe that their arrests and convictions helped in any major way to prevent a planned terrorist attack in this country.
What has happened to people who have been arrested and held for some considerable time before being released? What effect does it have on them, their families and on the reputation of the British administration of justice?
Opposition Members have tried to argue that we do not object to parts of the prevention of terrorism Act. Indeed, when I was Opposition spokesman on the Bill in Committee two years ago we gave our wholehearted support to cutting off the natural support for terrorists. Other parts of the Bill were discussed. We know that we need legislation—perhaps special legislation—but not this legislation, because it does not work.
There could not have been a fairer offer than that made by the Opposition this week when we said that we do not have all the answers and we do not know how to defeat terrorists on our own, but that we do not think that the Government know how to do it on their own, and so we offered the hand of co-operation. We said that we wished to study some parts of the Act, other parts are positive and some parts are objectionable. Only a schoolboy would say, "We won't discuss it with you because you don't like the prevention of terrorism Act."
The Opposition object to serious flaws in the prevention of terrorism Act and we have no alternative but to vote against it tonight.

Mr. Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sheerman: I shall not.

Mr. Tracey: It is on that point.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Member has made it clear that he is not giving way; the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) should not persist in that case.

Mr. Sheerman: I am not frit, but I shall not give way.
I want to—[Interruption.] I am missing out a part of my speech because Conservative Members made such long-winded speeches.
Misuse of the criminal justice system in our country does enormous damage to the reputation of British justice. The Home Secretary skated over any reference to our objections to the Act on that basis. The fight against terrorism will never be won if we do not win the trust and support of the community. We cannot hope to win their trust if we treat them with such flagrant disregard for civil liberties. We are not making a spurious case, but a serious one. In Northern Ireland, the situation is exacerbated by the parallel Prevention of Terrorism (Emergency Provisions) Act and sections of the community, sadly, appear to have lost all faith in the administration of justice. That cannot be right.
It must be remembered that not only the arrested individuals' confidence is shattered by their experience, but there is a knock-on effect on their families, friends and everyone who hears of the treatment that they have received. The existence of draconian powers also serves to give terrorists a special status that we all wish to deny them. The successful criminalising of terrorists means that they must be dealt with under ordinary criminal law. They are rotten criminals, not politicians. If we design special legislation for them, we give them a special identity and therefore play into their hands by giving them treatment that they do not deserve.
We are grateful for Lord Colville's informative report about his investigation into the operation of the Act in 1990. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook argued convincingly——

Mr. Lawrence: The right hon. Gentleman said that Lord Colville wanted to scrap the legislation.

Mr. Sheerman: My right hon. Friend did not say that. He said that particular parts of Lord Colville's recommendations lead us to agree with Lord Colville that it is now irresistible that a new tribunal be set up to oversee those powers. If the independent arbiter who is brought in by—[Interruption.] We gave the Government a fair hearing and I should like to finish my speech. As we said in Committee two years ago, Lord Colville made many important and fundamental criticisms of the working of the Act. The Government have ignored those criticisms. What sort of Government can conceive an Act that does not defeat terrorism—their record on terrorism is appalling—and, every time the independent arbiter makes suggestions to improve the Act, they refuse to implement them? They are then surprised when a helpful, constructive Opposition say that there should be fundamental changes made to the Act. They are surprised that, ultimately, we are forced to vote against the Act in its entirety to force the Government, who are deaf on the subject, to listen.
Lord Colville again turns his attention to the problem that the detention powers under the Act contravene the European convention on human rights. He suggests that a tribunal could be set up to judge whether a suspect's detention should be extended rather than the responsibi lity remaining solely with the Home Secretary. I asked the Home Secretary about that and have been advised that such a tribunal may be acceptable to the European Court. Will the junior Minister say whether that is so? If the European Court were independent so that it could make decisions, not merely recommendations to the Home Secretary, would that be acceptable? Would it also be acceptable if the court provided that the suspect should appear before it with his or her legal representative and if the suspect was given the opportunity to make representations on his or her behalf? We understand that those three changes would be acceptable to the European Court. Will the Minister comment on that? Such a measure would allow the Government to remove Britain's derogation and enable us, once again, to fulfil our obligations under the European convention on human rights. Simply repealing the provisions would ensure an easier compliance with the court's decision. The Labour party believes that we should not have derogated in the first place, but the court's decision should have been accepted and implemented without delay. We urge the Government to do so as soon as possible.
Lord Colville also said that the offence of withholding information should be removed. We have asked the Government time and again for their response to that. Virtually no provision in the Act has escaped intensive criticism by the Government's own reviewers and the European Court of Human Rights. One wonders whether any credibility for the Act remains. The time has come to accept that the Act has no future as a serious tool in the fight against terrorism. We need fresh thinking and a new approach to the problem.

Mr. Lawrence: What is the Labour party's alternative for action?

Mr. Sheerman: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will wait, I shall tell him.
Last Tuesday, the Opposition made a serious proposal to introduce two measures that the British public want. We want an all-party approach to the defeat of terrorism, but also an effective approach—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I shall not give way.
The Opposition are offering to participate in all-party discussions. We shall come with a blank sheet of paper. We have no prejudices except those against terrorists—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary is mumbling as usual.
On Saturday evening, I made a speech in my constituency. The meeting was packed out.

Mr. Bowis: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification of the term "packed out". Does it mean that, when more minor party representatives——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the Chair. Let us continue the debate as we have very little time.

Mr. Sheerman: In my speech to my constituents I said that there was an agreed anti-terrorism policing policy which we believe makes sense. It would give the police a national intelligence unit and the ability to tackle terrorism seriously. We made such a positive suggestion in our discussions with the Government. We would discuss anything to defeat terrorism, but the Government will put nothing on the table because, ultimately, they secretly want to use this issue as a political stick to beat the Opposition. The great British public will not be fooled. They want action against terrorism, not fancy words.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) spoke about sticks to beat the Opposition. We have just heard an example of self-flagellation. It was uncharacteristic and unparliamentary of him not to give way during his speech, but I shall follow his example. I shall not respond to any of the issues that he raised. If he is not prepared to debate, I am not prepared to debate with him.
In general, the debate has been good. It has ebbed and flowed from both sides of the water, and there have been some excellent speeches from my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) presented some robust arguments; and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) was right to say that we need to protect the civil rights of his constituents who risked being injured by the bomb on the

track in Hertfordshire. The civil rights of everyone in the United Kingdom must be protected and we shall ensure that we protect them.

Mr. Tracey: I heard what my right hon. Friend said about not giving way, but I was trying to make an important point to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). If the Opposition were successful in voting down the motion tonight, the measure would no longer exist. They say that they would then go into talks. Would not the public be unprotected until an alternative was put forward? Our priority must be to protect our people.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) is absolutely right. Should Labour win tonight and the order be defeated, the Act would lapse in a few days and the public on both sides of the water would lack the protection given by the Act—my hon. Friend was, characteristically, spot on. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who wants the defeat of terrorism, was also right. He and I agree that the role of the prevention of terrorism Act is vital. Last, but by no means least, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) was right to treat the House to a chilling litany of death and destruction, and I am grateful to him.
I do not for one moment doubt the detestation of terrorism of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). However, when we compare his words with what he undoubtedly feels, his speech seems odd and unhappy. Its very first sentence was to the effect that he would lead his party to vote against the prevention of terrorism Act. He then went on to make a number of suggestions. If he were really interested in serious discussions with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and had a list of things he wanted to discuss, rather than issuing a press statement last week and condemning the prevention of terrorism Act in the first breath of his speech today, surely he should have gone to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, perhaps on Privy Councillor terms, to talk to him about the sort of changes he wanted. Instead, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook turned to opposition by press release—a speech, a quick letter and then into the Chamber tonight with a few suggestions that I genuinely believe were hastily and inadequately cobbled together.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's qualified support for EPA and his suggestion that we should look hard at financial provisions to chase up terrorists and track down terrorists' funds in the three separate Acts—Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989—that constitute the most significant and fiercest package of anti-terrorist measures in any western European country. If it can be made better, clearly we must do so.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of bold new initiatives. He promised five, but later extended the list to seven. I admired the facility with which he produced them, although not the production.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten: As I said, I shall not give way. I do not mean the right hon. Gentleman any disrespect, but he


should talk to his junior spokesman when they get outside the Chamber about how one conducts oneself in a proper, grown-up debating Chamber.
The approach of the right hon. Gentleman was counter-productive. I shall not condemn him; unfortunately, he was not in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) spoke. I do not intend to do down the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, who, as we all recognise, is one of the fairest minded Members. He said that the speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook contained nothing new, and I agree with him. He also said that he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman's speech took a genuinely bipartisan approach, and I agree with him. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland is not a Conservative or a Unionist, but speaks as a professional observer and seeker after consensus. That is the Liberal Democrats' position.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland also said—this was most telling—that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook had significantly misled the House over Lord Colville's approach—savage words from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, who was absolutely right. He finished his speech with a splendid phrase. He said that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook had simply failed to measure up to the threat of terrorism. We all say "Hear, hear" to that.
When the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was kind enough to allow me to intervene—something that I shall not allow him to do—he demonstrated that he failed to understand the differences between the workings of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the prevention of terrorism Act. I was not seeking to be rude to the right hon. Gentleman, but it surprised me that, after so many years as shadow Home Secretary, he still did not understand the fundamental difference. The speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it queer—[Laughter.]—clear, and I can quote from my right hon. Friend's wonderfully clear speech. He rightly said that there were many circumstances in which the police might have information that a person was involved in terrorism but have no information as to the specific offence in which he may have been involved. He said:
Without the prevention of terrorism Act, there would be no power to arrest such a person. Those who would not continue with that Act in force would allow known terrorists to walk our streets—with the police powerless to intervene.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is under a basic misapprehension about the nature and purpose of the Act. Apart from the provisions of general law, we also need to be able to go further and use it for preventive purposes. That is why we have the power, under the prevention of terrorism Act, to take into detention, and then examine, for the purposes of determining whether a person appears to be someone who is or has been concerned with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. That is why we have the Act. That apart, the police must always act on reasonable suspicion, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington.
Therefore, under section 14 of the Act, the power of arrest and detention is governed by reasonable suspicion. That is the rule.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: On the issue of rules, will my right hon. Friend comment on reports that

the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was kept from the final stages of the Criminal Justice Bill last week because he was attending a £1,000 a head dinner——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is totally irrelevant to the debate.

Mr. Patten: I am tempted to take up the intervention, but I am afraid that the dining habits of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook are not matters for Her Majesty's Government.
The European Court of Human Rights has found against my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary only on his power of extension of detention. We should also have listened with respect to what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said about the differences in judicial practice and detention between this country and other countries. In Belgium, the police can detain for only 24 hours, but thereafter they can detain indefinitely before charges are laid. There is a qualitative difference. If the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook had been in the Chamber to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, he would understand that.
We accept in good faith that the Labour party's desire to do something about the scourge of terrorism is reflected in its call for talks—it would be wrong to do anything else. We also believe that its commitment to combat terrorism would be much better reflected in its support for the prevention of terrorism Act, as has been said by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other hon. Friends. Comfortable condemnation from the Green Benches is not enough. The Labour party cannot merely weave words, but must will the means, and the best way to do that is through the extension of the prevention of terrorism Act. To ignore the Act and, instead, to engage in talks would be to leave a vacuum for terrorists to exploit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton said.
We must have a policy in place to deal with terrorism; we cannot rely on talks as a substitute for immediate action. We cannot legally disarm ourselves in this country and leave our people without the anti-terrorist legislation that they need and other countries—the United States, Germany and Italy—see that they need. That is why a new prevention of terrorism measure is now before the Greek Parliament, demonstrating the Greek Government's intention to deal with the problem with special legislation.
I do not doubt the personal integrity of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and his hon. Friends, or their dislike of terrorism, but if their views were put into effect, that would lead to the growth of terrorism in this country. Therefore, I commend to the House the order that will ensure that that does not happen.

Question put:—

The House divided:—Ayes 303, Noes 138.

Division No. 85]
[7 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Ashby, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Aspinwall, Jack


Alexander, Richard
Atkins, Robert


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)


Allason, Rupert
Baldry, Tony


Alton, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Amess, David
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)


Amos, Alan
Batiste, Spencer


Arbuthnot, James
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Beith, A. J.


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Bellingham, Henry




NOES


Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Allen, Graham
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Anderson, Donald
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Armstrong, Hilary
Canavan, Dennis


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Battle, John
Clay, Bob


Beckett, Margaret
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bennett, A. F.(D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cohen, Harry


Bermingham, Gerald
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Blunkett, David
Corbett, Robin


Boateng, Paul
Corbyn, Jeremy


Boyes, Roland
Cox, Tom


Bradley, Keith
Cryer, Bob

Bendall, Vivian
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gregory, Conal


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Ground, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Grylls, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hague, William


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bowis, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hannam, John


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hargreaves, A.(B'ham H'll Gr')


Brazier, Julian
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bright, Graham
Harris, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Haselhurst, Alan


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hawkins, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hayes, Jerry


Buck, Sir Antony
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Budgen, Nicholas
Hayward, Robert


Burns, Simon
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butterfill, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carrington, Matthew
Hill, James


Carttiss, Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Cash, William
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Holt, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, G.(Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Churchill, Mr
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)
Hunter, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Irvine, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Irving, Sir Charles


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jack, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Jackson, Robert


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Cran, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Critchley, Julian
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Q.(Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Key, Robert


Devlin, Tim
Kilfedder, James


Dicks, Terry
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dorrell, Stephen
Kirkwood, Archy


Dover, Den
Knapman, Roger


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dykes, Hugh
Knowles, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Knox, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fallon, Michael
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lord, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Forth, Eric
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Maclennan, Robert


Franks, Cecil
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fry, Peter
Madel, David


Gale, Roger
Maginnis, Ken


Gardiner, Sir George
Malins, Humfrey


Gill, Christopher
Mans, Keith


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maples, John


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Marlow, Tony


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodlad, Alastair
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorst, John
Mates, Michael

Maude, Hon Francis
Shersby, Michael


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sims, Roger


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Miscampbell, Norman
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Speller, Tony


Mitchell, Sir David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Moate, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Squire, Robin


Monro, Sir Hector
Stanbrook, Ivor


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Moore, Rt Hon John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Steen, Anthony


Morrison, Sir Charles
Stern, Michael


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Stevens, Lewis


Moss, Malcolm
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mudd, David
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Stokes, Sir John


Needham, Richard
Sumberg, David


Nelson, Anthony
Summerson, Hugo


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nicholls, Patrick
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)


Norris, Steve
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thorne, Neil


Oppenheim, Phillip
Townsend, Cyril D.(B'heath)


Page, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Paice, James
Tredinnick, David


Paisley, Rev Ian
Trimble, David


Patnick, Irvine
Trippier, David


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Trotter, Neville


Patten, Rt Hon John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pawsey, James
Viggers, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Porter, David (Waveney)
Walden, George


Portillo, Michael
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Powell, William (Corby)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Price, Sir David
Waller, Gary


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Walters, Sir Dennis


Rathbone, Tim
Warren, Kenneth


Redwood, John
Watts, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wells, Bowen


Rhodes James, Robert
Wheeler, Sir John


Riddick, Graham
Whitney, Ray


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wiggin, Jerry


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Wilkinson, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wilshire, David


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wolfson, Mark


Rost, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Sackville, Hon Tom
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Sayeed, Jonathan
Yeo, Tim


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, David (Dover)



Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tellers for tbe Ayes:


Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Cummings, John
McNamara, Kevin


Darling, Alistair
Madden, Max


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Mallon, Seamus


Dixon, Don
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dobson, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Duffy, A. E. P.
Meale, Alan


Eadie, Alexander
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Eastham, Ken
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Faulds, Andrew
Morgan, Rhodri


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morris, Rt Hon A.(W'shawe)


Fisher, Mark
Mowlam, Marjorie


Flynn, Paul
Mullin, Chris


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Murphy, Paul


Foster, Derek
Nellist, Dave


Foulkes, George
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fraser, John
O'Brien, William


Fyfe, Maria
O'Hara, Edward


Galloway, George
O'Neill, Martin


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Patchett, Terry


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Prescott, John


Gordon, Mildred
Primarolo, Dawn


Gould, Bryan
Quin, Ms Joyce


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Radice, Giles


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Randall, Stuart


Grocott, Bruce
Redmond, Martin


Hardy, Peter
Reid, Dr John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Robertson, George


Haynes, Frank
Rogers, Allan


Henderson, Doug
Rooney, Terence


Hinchliffe, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Home Robertson, John
Rowlands, Ted


Hood, Jimmy
Ruddock, Joan


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Skinner, Dennis


Illsley, Eric
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Ingram, Adam
Smith, C.(Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Soley, Clive


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Lamond, James
Walley, Joan


Leighton, Ron
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Lewis, Terry
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Livingstone, Ken
Wigley, Dafydd


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Williams, Alan W.(Carm'then)


McAllion, John
Winnick, David


Macdonald, Calum A.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McFall, John
Worthington, Tony


McGrady, Eddie



McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Tellers for the Noes:


McLeish, Henry
Mr. Thomas McAvoy and Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.


McMaster, Gordon

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 21st February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Census (Confidentiality) Bill [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order for Third Reading read.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is a short Bill of a technical nature and it has received the support of the official Opposition, for which I am grateful. The Bill has served to draw attention to detailed aspects of census confidentiality, on which we had a useful discussion in Committee. I hope that I was able to reassure Committee members of the importance that the Government attach to the confidentiality provisions of the census legislation.
It is important to be able to give an assurance to every citizen filling in his census form that the information given will be the subject of complete confidentiality. The need for the Bill arose because the repeal of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 left two gaps in the confidentiality provisions which the Bill plugs. The Bill now allows us to say, as we should properly be able to say, that the information given in the course of completing the census form will be treated with absolute confidentiality.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Can the Minister assure me that the people taken on as temporary employees for the purpose of gathering census information will have impressed on them during their training programmes the need for such confidentiality?

Mr. Dorrell: Yes, the importance of confidentiality will be stressed to short-term employees in the census office taken on for the purpose of collecting census information. They will be governed by the same statutory duty of confidentiality as everyone else who is, under the terms of the Bill, under the control of the registrar-general.
I believe that the Bill represents a small but important step in securing that absolute duty of confidentiality. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: The Minister has said that this is a short, technical Bill, but it deals with an important matter.
More than a year ago the House agreed that the census should take place on 21 April. As the Minister said, the Bill remedies a defect in the legislation that arose as a result of the reform of the Official Secrets Act 1911.
There is no doubt in the mind of the official Opposition that the Bill has been scrutinised and that, as a result of the Bill, the personal information given by fellow citizens in the census will be more closely guarded and protected than in any previous census.
The census is a vital instrument of social policy and the information in it is as useful to the Opposition as it is to the Government. The census is used more by health authorities and local authorities than by anyone else because they are in closer contact with our fellow citizens.
We want to reassure fellow citizens that there is no connection whatever between the census and the poll tax.


Anyone who seeks to give the misguided advice that the census should not be complied with because of the poll tax is making a fundamental error. There can be no connection between the two. The Opposition are satisfied about that and, therefore, we give the Bill our full support.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I do not want to detain the House for long, but I want to discuss an issue that I have pursued for the past 18 months—my concern that the protection of the confidentiality of census information does not go far enough.
I am certain that my constituents welcome the idea of the census, as it provides the basic raw material to provide better education and health services and to improve the general government of the country. My constituents are concerned, however, about the further possibility—one that the Government seem keen to develop—of selling census material to commercial organisations that will use it for their own profit.
Census material has been sold in the past and I do not believe that that caused many problems. This time round, however, that material will be sold on the basis of postal codes. Since the previous census, methods of handling data by computer have developed greatly. People are concerned that after the next census has been completed, census material will be available within 18 months on the basis of postal codes.
It will be relatively simple to run that census material through a computer and to match it to information on the electoral register and on poll tax returns. Commercial organisations, having done that, will use the lists generated, based on names on the electoral register and the census information, for mail shots.
My constituents, in common with many others, already receive far too much junk mail. It would be of considerable concern to them if, having completed census forms to improve good government in this country, they found that their letter boxes were stuffed with more items of junk mail. When we discussed the census order, the Minister said that my constituents should not complain if junk mail is more accurately directed rather than inaccurately directed as it is now. Many of my constituents do not want mail shots at all.
If I am concerned about mail shots, I am even more concerned about the present practice of insurance companies refusing insurance cover to certain areas of towns because of their postal codes and, in some cases, dramatically increasing premiums. If that policy is based on crime statistics for an area, together with census material, my constituents and others have reason to be concerned.
Even at this late stage the Minister should think again about allowing census information to be made available on the basis of relatively small postal code areas of about 2,200 households because of the way in which it can be used for commercial purposes. We have had more than 100 years of almost universal co-operation with the census on the basis that it is to provide information for the good government of this country, and it would be very sad if people reduced their co-operation because they were unhappy about some of the uses to which census material was to be put.
It might be better to forgo income from the sale of such information to commercial organisations so that we could

continue to receive the goodwill of the general public rather than to risk that general goodwill by making information available on the basis of relatively small postal code areas. Although I shall not vote against the Bill, I still hope that the Government will reconsider their decision to sell census information on the basis of postal codes.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I promose to be very brief. I wish to voice my concern about confidentiality and to seek an assurance from the Minister. Am I to take it that those who are employed temporarily or otherwise by the registrar in Scotland in the collection of highly confidential information will not collect such information from the neighbourhoods in which they live?

Mr. Harry Cohen: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that the census is important, and that is why I shall not vote against the Bill. However, the census depends on public co-operation. Therefore, there should be no fear about how census data will be used or people would be likely to give wrong information.
The Minister should comment on a letter in last Saturday's issue of The Guardian from Mr. David Northmore of Bloomsbury Publishing Ltd. He drew attention to the longitudinal survey that the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys conducts, which traces the activities of 1 per cent. of the population—about 600,000 people—through their entire lifetimes. He said that following the 17th national census—this is the 19th—the National Council for Civil Liberties
revealed that OPCS had undertaken a follow-up survey of ex-nurses whose names and addresses had been taken from the individual census returns—although no warning that this might happen was given on the forms.
Mr. Northmore hopes that that will not happen with this census, and particularly in respect of the longitudinal survey. He went on to ask an important question about whether OPCS computers will be registered under the Data Protection Act 1984
for the transfer of such information".
Those are two very good points and they warrant a response by the Minister.
I made it clear in Committee and on Second Reading that there was poor planning by the Government in relation to the census which is to take place on 21 April. They were slow to get the report on confidentiality from the British Computer Society. They said that it would not be ready until after the census began, but they have since hurried because pressure was applied by hon. Members on the Committee, and they have published Command Paper 1447. The BCS said that the plans are okay and that all that it can do is to look at plans and intentions but that it could not give
a definitive view of actual adherence in practice".
That point is repeated throughout the report. The report goes on to state that:
not all procedures had been defined, not all aspects of systems had been designed, not all equipment had been procured or installed, nor had all accommodation been completed.
The census has been poorly organised by the Government.
There is a serious question about information technology. Much new technology has been introduced since the previous census. In Committee I referred to optical discs. British Telecom can put virtually all its telephone directories on optical discs. Presumably census officers will also be able to put information on optical discs in the near future. We had some assurance——

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I dislike stopping the hon. Gentleman, but I draw his attention to the fact that the Bill is only a three-clause Bill—it is narrow. This is the Third Reading debate. The hon. Gentleman can debate only what is in the Bill, not what he would like to be in the Bill, or what might have been or should have been in the Bill.

Mr. Cohen: I am confining myself to the Bill because it is the interpretation of confidentiality—

Madam Deputy Speaker: In that case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would refer me to the section of the Bill to which he is referring. That would be extremely helpful.

Mr. Cohen: I am referring to confidentiality, which is in the short title of the Bill and in the long title. If confidentiality is not assured, the census will fail in its essential purposes. I am trying to restrict my remarks. I made speeches on Second Reading and in Committee and I do not wish to repeat them.
The Government are not allowing subject access, and that is a mistake. People should be able to see their own personal data to check that they are not misused. That is how the Bill is relevant to the data protection legislation. The OPCS seems to be saying, "We are keeping your information confidential, but you cannot look at it to check that we are doing that." That is not a good aspect.
I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish about information being provided for commercial purposes. It was a mistake for the Government to open just a window for that to be done on the basis of postal codes. The minimum of 16 households and 50 individuals to which the Minister referred is too small. The Minister should have increased that minimum to protect confidentiality. Good assurances about the poll tax were given in Committee. I even put out press releases relating to those assurances so that people would fill in their forms properly. However, there is an abiding fear among many people, including some of my constituents, that the information might yet be used for poll tax purposes. In view of the assurances that we were given in Committee, I do not think that it will be. However, if the Government want to make sure that this is not a problem, they should scrap the poll tax. We are told that that tax is still under consideration. I suggest that the Minister who is responsible for census returns should put in his tuppence worth towards scrapping it.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I know that the Minister is disappointed when I make short speeches. Well, I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint him on this occasion, as I want to make only a few brief points. Indeed, my points will be developments of those

made by my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who talked about the problems of confidentiality.
My hon. Friends referred in particular to information that could be derived by way of postal districts. If people feel that there is not full confidentiality, it is difficult to secure their co-operation and good will. Despite the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton, the Bill does provide protection with regard to information given to poll tax registrars. Such information cannot be used for census purposes.
However, I argue that the Government ought to be consistent. The issue of confidentiality affects many aspects of British politics and the British constitution. The census is a key element of constitutional law. Written in this measure, or perhaps into a separate measure, should be a provision that information supplied for electoral purposes must be kept separate from information supplied for poll tax purposes. It is my intention to seek to introduce a measure entitled the Electoral Registration (Confidentiality) Bill, which will be entirely consistent with this measure. Thus, I hope, the Minister will have an opportunity to support the protection that I seek.

Mr. Dorrell: Once again, I am grateful for the expressions of support from all parts of the House for the principle on which the Bill is based, which is that it is important to establish beyond peradventure that information given in the course of a census is the subject of a statutory duty of confidentiality that is complete and unquestioned. I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and his hon. Friends for that important principle. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Perry Barr that the 10-year series censuses in this country provide valuable information. Certainly, the information is valuable for the management of the health service. It is also valuable to the Opposition, because it enables them to support their prejudices with the occasional smattering of facts when they advance their case against us.[Interruption.] It is a tactic which has been used by successive Oppositions down the years.
Obviously, the information provided through a census is an important basis of political debate. As the hon. Member for Perry Barr has stressed, there is no connection—indeed, there can be no connection—between the information provided in the course of a census and information associated with the community charge. First, the information collected in the course of a census is the subject of a statutory duty of confidentiality and cannot, therefore, be passed to those responsible for the community charge register. Secondly, by the time census information was published, it would be out of date for the purposes of compiling a community charge register.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) continues to be concerned about the possible commercial exploitation of the information provided through a census. I do not see how, in a free society, one could prevent information published by census offices from being used by commercial organisations as a basis for market research. I think that that is neither possible nor desirable.
The hon. Gentleman, seeing that information is to be published by the census offices on the basis of postcode


sectors, makes the link between those sectors and junk mail. Apart from the fact that both have at least an indirect connection with the Post Office, I do not think that there is an important link between them. The hon. Gentleman's argument rests on the assumption that the publication of information on the basis of postcode sectors involves a greater risk to confidentiality than does the publication of information on another local basis. As I reminded the members of the Standing Committee, the average postcode sector is roughly 10 times the size of the average enumeration district. So far as I know, the hon. Gentleman does not challenge the suggestion that we should publish information on the basis of enumeration districts. The average postcode sector contains 2,300 households, whereas the average enumeration district contains 200 households.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In the past, the enumeration district was drawn up for convenience in the collection of information, and could not be easily matched with anything else. It would have been extremely difficult to run information through a computer and quickly match it with names on the electoral list. But, once the postal code is included, it will be extremely easy to match on a national basis.

Mr. Dorrell: The possibilities about which the hon. Gentleman expressed concern were that there could be breaches of confidentiality and that information derived from a census could be used commercially. The point that I am making is that the enumeration district is a building block for the creation of a postcode sector—not the other way round. Of course, the boundaries will not always be precisely the same. Anyone seeking to discover the social make-up of a postcode sector would not find it very difficult—give or take the odd relatively small margin of error—to build up a reasonable picture, simply by taking the information published on the basis of enumeration districts. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has shown that there is either a threat to confidentiality or a breach of privacy that could be exploited commercially in an undesirable way by providing information on the basis of postcode sectors.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked me for an assurance that temporary employees would not be asked to collect information in the locality in which they lived. I can give him an absolute assurance to that effect.
The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) expressed concern abut the contents of a letter in last Saturday's Guardian concerning the collection of information in a longitudinal study. I refer the hon. Gentleman to a written answer that I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), in which I set out the basis of the continuing longitudinal study that the OPCS conducts:
The OPCS has no plans to conduct, commission or participate in a longitudinal survey based on the 1991 census. Such a survey would entail repeated interviewing of a sample of the population over a period of time. However, the OPCS administers a longitudinal study which can be used to link together, when required, data for a 1 per cent. sample of the population of England and Wales to produce statistical tables. The study includes the information from the various records of events held by the OPCS. The events include the 1971 and 1981 censuses, births and deaths. The study provides additional insights in the process of changes over time and increase the usefulness of information collected by the OPCS. As announced in the winter 1989 issue of Population Trends', a copy of which is in the Library, the OPCS plans to include the appropriate sample of records from the 1991 census in the study."—[Official Report, 26 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 467.]
As regards the hon. Gentleman's case that the British Computer Society study was published too late, I am bound to say that it could also have been published too early. The purpose of the study was to examine the procedures that were being put in place for the census that is to take place in April. That requires the BCS to see those procedures being put into place and it would have been absurd to advance that ahead of the time when that information would have been available to it.
The Bill is a small but significant step in completing the statutory guarantee of confidentiality surrounding the census, and I hope that the House will give it a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — Oversea Superannuation Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I start by declaring a pecuniary interest in that I am a beneficiary of the provisions of the Overseas Pensions Act 1973 by virtue of having served in colonial Nigeria. The Bill covers comparatively narrow ground, but I shall make one or two points that are of importance to the people concerned and to others who may be indirectly concerned, or who may be concerned in the future.
I refer first to Hong Kong pensioners. As the House knows, the position there is completely different from that in the rest of the former colonial empire. On transition to independence, arrangements for the pensions of the expatriate staff of the British colonial service or the British overseas civil service were made, and pensions were guaranteed and paid by Britain in the shape of the Overseas Pensions Act, which provides for enhancement and index linking. That is wholly beneficial and, to the extent that the Bill tidies up little problems of that kind for members of the overseas civil service, one is grateful.
However, Hong Kong will not become independent. It is not envisaged that the same arrangements will apply to those who have retired or who will retire from colonial service there as apply to people who have served in countries that have become independent and whose pensions are fully protected. For one thing, such people get credit for war service included with their final pension. Half of their war service is added on for pension purposes. That is a generous and proper addition. However, Hong Kong does not, and will not, do that. The Hong Kong Government are dragging their feet under cover of the excuse that it has a problem with the People's Republic. Although this is a colonial territory and should obey the orders of the British Government, the British Government are not willing to enforce their authority and tell these unelected administrators, most of whom are British, where their duty lies. Their duty is to ensure that pensioners who served in the colonial service in Hong Kong are treated in the same way as pensioners who have retired from service in other parts of the colonial empire.
Secondly, the arrangements for Hong Kong pensioners are special in that the value of the pension awarded at the end of service, whether or not the person has been in service elsewhere, is calculated in terms of the Hong Kong dollar, which is linked to the American dollar. Such pensions have been subject to fluctuation. I am talking about those drawing their pensions now, who may or may not be covered by the Bill, but whose pensions may have declined in value by 30 per cent. Such a deterioration in the value of the pension of someone who has given service to the Crown with honour, honesty and responsibility and now is living in Britain is wrong. These people should be treated in the same way as all other pensioners who have served in the colonial service.
The remedy is for the British Government to agree, under the provisions of the Overseas Pensions Act, to bring the Hong Kong system into line with that for other services, including those covered by the Bill. We must avoid that discrepancy which is emerging in the treatment of pensioners. From whatever part of the colonial service

these people have retired, the amount payable should be calculated in sterling from the date of retirement and not from some future date. I know that that means the British Government having to take over in the way proposed in the Bill so as to ensure equality of treatment, but it must be done. We cannot leave an injustice like this when Hong Kong ceases to be part of the colonial empire.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It is not clear from the Bill, but I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could confirm that the provisions of the Bill apply to Hong Kong pensioners.

Mr. Stanbrook: That is part of the point that has to be made. A number of people covered by the Bill come under the provisions of the Overseas Pensions Act and the question is whether they will get the same treatment as everyone else. The Minister may say that they will, and I shall be happy about that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I asked the hon. Gentleman about this because on Third Reading we must discuss what is in the Bill, not how we think the Bill should be extended.

Mr. Stanbrook: I am not talking about extending the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I am asking questions. Who come under the Overseas Pensions Act 1973? From what territories do they come? Are they restricted to those who come from one territory, or are they part of the general movement of tidying up pensions legislation, which applies to all former colonial service officers? There is not much in it, it may be a quibble, but it is important that such a grievance should be ventilated if it can be done within the confines of the Bill. I think that it can because of the overriding benefit that Parliament gives to the colonial service generally by bringing all these cases within the Overseas Pensions Act.
We should ensure that included in this benefit are all those who come from different circumstances—for example, those who served in Hong Kong, which is not a traditional colony that is about to get independence. Another example is Zimbabwe, which, although it received independance, had a civil service that was locally recruited rather than being recruited by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Therefore, those who served in it do not have the same pension rights as others in the colonial service. Those people stayed at their posts and many served the British empire in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
These are difficult problems, but they have to be addressed and I believe that I was right to raise them in this debate.

Mr. George Foulkes: I had not intended to say anything, but, having heard the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), I feel that I must say a few words. I do not intend to go down the road that he opened up, because, like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cannot see its direct relevance to the Bill. The hon. Gentleman said that he was a beneficiary of the Bill, but the Opposition maintain their support for the Bill, shown on Second Reading and in Committee.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) on the eloquent and efficient way in which he dealt with the Bill in Committee. I congratulate the Minister for Overseas Development,


who unfortunately is not with us today, on the excellent way in which she dealt with the Bill in Committee. Perhaps I may be permitted the rare privilege of congratulating the Minister with us today on the eloquent way in which he moved the Third Reading.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): In view of the normal exchanges between the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and myself, I am grateful for his gracious compliment, which was so different from our last exchange.
With regard to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), perhaps it would be helpful if I stated the purpose of the Bill concisely. It seeks to bring the overseas superannuation scheme within the scope of the Overseas Pensions Act 1973, thereby giving the Overseas Development Administration the authority to defund the scheme—if I may use the jargon—which means to convert the scheme into a pay-as-you-go system.
The overseas superannuation scheme was an extra statutory pension fund that was set up in 1951 by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to provide superannuation cover for research and scientific staff who were working overseas. It was closed to new members in 1961, and there are no active contributors. It was always a small fund. It now pays 134 officers' pensions and makes 17 dependants' awards. One of its essential problems is its administrative cost. It consumes abut £25,000 per year.
There has been wide consultation on the desirability of this Bill. There was discussion with the advisory board, on which beneficiaries are represented. The beneficiaries were written to and asked whether they wished to petition against the Bill, but no petition has been lodged.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington referred specifically to Hong Kong. No decisions have yet been taken on the arrangements that will be made for overseas civil service officers following the transfer of sovereignty. My hon. Friend also referred to Zimbabwe. I am afraid that there is no prospect of the Government taking over responsibility for the payment of pensions that are now the responsibility of the Government of Zimbabwe.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Soviet Union and Eastern Europe

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10880/90+CORI and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by H.M. Treasury on 22nd February, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 26th February relating to extension of food assistance to the Soviet Union, Romania and Bulgaria and a credit facility for the Soviet Union and 4120/91 relating to revision of the financial perspective to finance technical assistance for the Soviet Union; and agrees with the Government that food aid to Romania and Bulgaria should be considered a priority; that any Community food aid given to the Soviet Union should be provided for humanitarian purposes; and that consideration of any other forms of Community help should take full account of developments in the Soviet Union and the Baltic States.
Tonight the House is debating matters that have considerable implications for us all—developments in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, and the way in which the European Community is responding and should respond to those events. First, I should like to put the debate in context—[Laughter] I am being laughed at, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I must advise Opposition Members that I was simply setting my stop watch so that I do not go on for too long. I hope that that provides some reassurance——

Mr. Donald Anderson: Was the Minister setting his watch to Moscow time?

Mr. Hogg: I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is House of Commons stop-watch time.
First, I should like to put the debate into its proper historical context. Worried as we are by recent shifts of policy in the Soviet Union, we should also acknowledge the profound and, we hope, irreversible changes that have taken place there. The countries that until recently were the satellite countries of the Soviet Union are now free of Soviet control. Most have introduced or are introducing accountable systems of government, and their economies are the subject of urgent and fundamental restructuring.Great changes have occurred within the Soviet Union itself since Mr. Gorbachev began the process of reform. The Soviet Union is a much more liberal and open society than it was six years ago. Ordinary people there have tasted freedom and can see the world more clearly and as it is. The distorting prism of Marxist theology lies shattered on the ground. The old style of Soviet government has failed the Soviet people and, for that reason, is finished.
Above all, we should recognise that the cold war has come to an end. The liberation of Kuwait—a triumph that we rightly celebrate—would not have been possible if the Soviet Union had not lent its support to the resolutions of the Security Council.
However, while the Government recognise the extent of the change that has taken place in eastern Europe and the critical role that President Gorbachev has played in that process of change—without him I do not believe that such change would have occurred—our support for President Gorbachev is not uncritical or unqualified. We support not Gorbachev the man, but Gorbachev the reformer.
This debate concerns the European Community's policy as set out in the documents that we are considering. Our policy is to encourage, to stimulate and, where we can,


to reward political and economic reform in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. All of us recognise the great difficulties that stand in the way of that process, and the length of time that the change will take. The nature of those changes is for the peoples of the Soviet Union to determine. We have no right—indeed, we lack the capacity—to influence the way in which the Soviet peoples will ultimately determine their future. It is not for us to seek the dissolution of the Soviet Union or to determine the shape of the constitutional arrangements that may be devised. Our interest—it is also the interest of the Soviet Union itself—lies in seeing the republics agreeing with the Soviet Government on new methods of working together harmoniously and with mutual consent. Our motives are simple. We believe that political and economic reform in eastern Europe and especially in the Soviet Union is desirable both for those who live in those countries and for all of us who inhabit the continent of Europe. By assisting the process whereby individuals within the Soviet Union gain greater economic and political freedom, we hope to see that country develop its great potential. Moreover, and as a general rule, democratic states do not fight aggressive wars.
That was the background to the decisions that were taken by the European Council on 14 and 15 December 1990. The Community wanted to reinforce the movement of reform within the Soviet Union by sending a clear signal of support. That is why the Community decided on four specific measures: food aid, worth £175 million; a guarantee for credits to purchase food, worth £350 million; technical assistance to the value of £280 million, and the negotiation of a new and wide-ranging agreement for our mutual relations. The Government supported all those decisions. However, we believe that there should be a close connection between the delivery of support and the fact of reform. Furthermore, we were and we are concerned that food aid should be targeted at the genuinely needy, and that it should be closely monitored to ensure that it reaches those people.

Sir David Steel: I have been closely following what the Minister is saying. Democratic groupings in the Soviet Union, Romania and Bulgaria have stressed the importance not only of monitoring to whom the food goes, but the method of distribution. In other words, will the ancien regime get the credit for distribution through its own tentacles of apparatus, or will we ensure that the distribution of food does not become a political instrument for propping up the old and discredited administrations?

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has made a serious and important point. We will endeavour to ensure that the method of distribution is not that described by the right hon. Gentleman and that it does not have the effect that he fears.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: With regard to the question that the Minister has just answered and with respect to the food aid for humanitarian purposes, which non-governmental agencies within the European Community will monitor that distribution in the way requested by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel)?

Mr. Hogg: Management committees will be set up on which officials will be represented. They will have an overall and over-arching duty to monitor. I cannot at this moment tell the hon. Gentleman whether any nongovernmental organisations will be involved in that process. However, I will make inquiries about that during the debate and if I have an opportunity at its conclusion, I will try to deal with that specific point then, if the hon. Gentleman will permit me.
As I was saying, it is important that we ensure that the humanitarian aid reaches those to whom it is directed. It is also very important not to disrupt the Soviet Union's agricultural market. It is also important that we do not stand in the way of much-needed improvements in the existing food distribution system.
We must recognise that within the Soviet Union the greatest shortage is not of food, but of expertise and that is precisely what we have to offer. We can offer knowledge to develop an entrepreneurial system; training and advice to those engaged in new projects and market-oriented enterprises; and assistance to those engaged in constructing the legal framework for a market economy. That approach is the objective of the United Kingdom's know-how fund for the Soviet Union and it was also the purpose of the Community's technical assistance programme.
As I have already said, we believe that there should be a close connection between the delivery of support and the fact of reform. The tragic events in the Baltic states have brought into question the Soviet commitment to reform and those events have caused real damage to east-west relations.
The British Government have never recognised the forcible incorporation of the three Baltic states into the Soviet Union. We have repeatedly emphasised our belief that the peoples of the three Baltic republics have the right to determine their own futures. We wholly condemn the way in which the Soviet forces behaved in the early days of this year. The loss of life in Lithuania and Latvia was tragic and deplorable.
Following those killings, we and our partners within the Community took urgent steps to emphasise to the Soviet Union that our measures of support were not unconditional and would not survive continued repression. We therefore suspended the bulk of the measures previously agreed at the Rome European Council. However, since that suspension, there have developed modest grounds for optimism. For example, the Soviet Government have appointed delegations to begin discussions with the three Baltic states.
Moreover, the Soviet Government have distanced themselves from the bogus salvation councils that were brought into existence earlier this year. However, we must recognise that we are still some way from seeing proper and serious negotiations between the Baltic republics and the Soviet Government.
It is against that background of modest improvement that we should consider how the west in general and the European Community in particular should proceed. Should we turn our backs on the Soviet Union? Should we withhold all the support and encouragement that I have described?
I cannot believe that such a course would be right. The benefits of co-operation are obvious and mutual. The west has vital interests at stake. We therefore believe that, provided the response is positive, we should continue to


encourage and assist those working for reform within the Soviet Union. That is the message that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is delivering this week in Moscow. He will emphasise that very substantial help is available. He will say that the benefit that will flow from integration into the international economic system is great. However, all that depends upon the Soviet Union continuing with political and economic reform.
The motion refers to Bulgaria and Romania to which the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow referred.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: While we are considering economic aid, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that there is sympathy with the Soviet Union's position particularly when it has told the Baltic states that economic arrangements must be made? It is very difficult for any state to lose suddenly a vital part of its economy when its economy is in such difficulties.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has made an important point. However, we must go back to first principles. In this case the first principles are that we did not recognise forcible incorporation of the three Baltic republics into the Soviet Union. That was achieved in a deplorable and unlawful way. That is the foundation on which the debate must stand. I understand my hon. Friend's point about the loss to the Soviet Union. However, at the same time my hon. Friend would be the first to concede that the peoples of the three Baltic republics have a right to determine their own futures.
I am sure that the right approach for the House and for the Government is to say that we recognise the right of self-determination within the three Baltic republics and very much hope that there will be serious negotiations between the Soviet Government and those republics from which will emerge a solution that is acceptable to both parties. That may take the form of complete independence, but it may take a different form that falls short of complete independence. However, that is a matter for the parties to that negotiation.
Romania and Bulgaria have a great need for food and medical aid. That is why the Government supported last December's decision of the European Council to provide £70 million of food and medical aid to both those countries. We are now pressing for the rapid disbursement of that aid.
I am glad to say that the Bulgarian Government are actively pursuing a programme of economic and political reform. The United Kingdom Government recognise that and therefore two weeks ago, during the visit to this country of President Zhelev, we extended the know-how fund to Bulgaria.
There is evidence that Romania is also pressing ahead with reform. Right hon. and hon. Members will have noted last Tuesday's speech by the Romanian Prime Minister, Mr Roman, in which he emphasised his Government's intention to restructure his country's economy along free market lines. We believe that the Community must encourage and assist that process, and we welcome the decision taken last January to include Romania in the PHARE programme. That decision was reached only after the European Community had carefully monitored events in Romania over the preceding six

months. I assure the House that the Community will continue to monitor events in Romania to ensure that reforms happen.

Sir David Steel: Political as well as economic reforms?

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman makes a sound point. I agree that political and economic reforms are linked.
Our policy towards Romania provides a good example of the Community policy of conditionality. By making support conditional upon democracy and economic liberalisation—taking the point that the two stand together—the Community encourages reforms in those areas. By delivering a programme of support, we help the reformers to honour their undertakings.
I hope that the Soviet Government have drawn the right conclusion from the delay in implementing the European Council package, and we believe that the time has come to move forward. Discussions on food aid and on credit guarantees have continued, and that work is more or less complete. The United Kingdom has insisted that food aid be properly targeted and monitored. Both food aid and credit guarantees will be under the supervision of management committees, which will permit strict member state control.
Adverting to the intervention by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow when he asked about the extent to which non-governmental organisations will be involved in monitoring distribution, I confirm that we have pressed for a role for NGOs, and that the Commission's proposal includes provision for such help. The Red Cross is an obvious candidate in that respect, and the Crown Agents are another. No decisions have been taken as to which NGOs will be involved, but that NGOs should be involved is accepted.
Discussions were resumed at today's Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels, where our approach was endorsed by other member states. Financial aspects remain to be resolved with the European Parliament. The European Commission has yet to table a proposal on technical assistance, but we believe that it should continue its preparations. That view is endorsed by the Council.
However, we believe that we should hold something in reserve, so a decision on the Commission's expected proposal on technical assistance will be taken in the light of the political and economic situation then prevailing. Only then will it be right to decide whether the financial perspectives should be amended to permit the release of the funds necessary to support the programme.

Mr. Anderson: The Minister mentioned the Red Cross in relation to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about NGOs. May one take it that, in addition to working through those agencies, the British Government and the Community will work through the republic Governments, as well as through the central Government? There is clearly a power struggle under way between the Kremlin and individual constituent republics.

Mr. Hogg: Yes, for the reasons suggested by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, and by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. It is important not to support by the provision of aid simply


the status quo or the Governments that are too closely associated with the ancien regime. It is often important to deliver aid at the lowest effective level.
It is the British Government's earnest wish that conditions within the Soviet Union will permit early Council agreement to an extensive Community programme of technical assistance and, in due course, to a broader framework for our respective relations.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: The Government keep talking about the Soviet Union, perhaps quite rightly, but what is the Soviet Union today? Only yesterday, we heard that 70 or 80 per cent. of the population of Estonia and Latvia do not want their countries to remain part of the USSR. Will we not have to give serious consideration to helping countries such as Romania and Bulgaria individually? To put it bluntly, the USSR no longer really exists as a power bloc that is able to assist all the countries that are going through what we in Brum call a hell of a time.

Mr. Hogg: I cannot entirely follow my hon. Friend in that. There is a distinction to be drawn between, on the one hand, Romania and Bulgaria, which are sovereign states, and, on the other, the three Baltic republics that are currently within the union; and on the third hand—if one can have three hands——

Mr. George Foulkes: That must be why the hon. and learned Gentleman's watch has stopped.

Mr. Hogg: —the other republics in the union.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: But they do not want it.

Mr. Hogg: So far as the three Baltic republics are concerned, we did not accept their forceful incorporation into the Soviet Union in 1941, and we hope that they can negotiate with the USSR a relationship that is acceptable to them both. As to the remainder of the Soviet Union, I remind my hon. Friend of my earlier remarks.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) was not in the Chamber at the time.

Mr. Hogg: I believe that my hon. Friend had a pressing engagement elsewhere, but it is always nice to see him.
It is not in our interests to seek to bring about the dissolution of the Soviet Union. That is not the purpose of our policy. We are not in the business of doing that. Europe has much to gain from co-operation and closer links with the Soviet Union, but co-operation can continue only as long as we are confident of the Russian Government's commitment to the principles of reform. Our support for President Gorbachev is not unqualified or uncritical. We support not Mr. Gorbachev the man, but Mr. Gorbachev the reformer.

Mr. George Robertson: Last year, I attended the European socialist parties congress in Berlin, just after everything started to happen in that part of the world, and was privileged to address that great assembly.

However, I came rather low down in the pecking order after the Kinnocks, Craxis, Mitterrands and Brandts had departed, so I addressed what was left of the audience.
I was able to tell the delegates from central and eastern Europe in particular that one of the great things that the British parliamentary system teaches is how to speak to empty halls. I advised them to prepare for the day when the crowds will have left Wenceslas square, when they will also find themselves addressing empty halls. That lesson is useful, too, when contributing to foreign affairs debates in the House.
This is a timely debate, as the Prime Minister arrives in Moscow this evening, and as European Community Foreign Ministers meet in Brussels today to discuss the same subject. I am grateful to the Government for arranging this debate so soon after we requested it. I also pay tribute to the Select Committee on European Legislation, which singled out these documents as being especially important.
The debate gives us a chance to review not only the Community's programmes of immediate and longer-term aid, but the prevailing circumstances in the countries of central and eastern Europe, as well as the Soviet Union itself. Understandably and inevitably, our recent preoccupation has been with the middle east rather than with the eastern part of our own continent. That preoccupation may well continue for some time, but we must never allow it to drive from our minds the dangerous fragility of the newly democratised nations in Europe. Nor should we forget the forces that are changing and, in some respects, destabilising the Soviet Union—still a military super-power with more than 20,000 nuclear weapons, and still a vitally important player in the modelling of the new international order, whenever that will take place.
There is an apparent lack of control in the Soviet Union at present—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) perhaps took it to extremes—which must perturb all of us. I was reminded of a story told by Sir David McNee, a former Metropolitan police commissioner, about his days as a police constable in Scotland. Having stopped a car that had been weaving along the highway, he went to the car window and asked the driver to wind it down. It became glaringly obvious what was wrong. He bent down and said to the driver, "Sir, you are drunk." The driver turned on him with a grin and said, "Thank God; I thought that my steering had gone."
There is a feeling that eminent men are sitting in the Kremlin wondering whether they are drunk or whether the steering has gone. But, of course, the Soviet Union is still crucially important in world affairs, which is precisely why our Prime Minister is in Moscow this evening, and why his discussions there are so important.
This may not be the place in which to say this, but, when we consider providing aid for our own continent, we must constantly remember the fate of the millions who, as we speak, are dying in the African famines. We must never allow our proper concern for the stability of Europe and the long-term democratic base of our neighbours to divert attention or resources from the pressing and urgent demands for the feeding of the millions who now face starvation.
The documents that we are considering allow us both to examine the programme of food aid to the Soviet Union—which, latterly, has turned out to be somewhat controversial—and to hear the Minister confirm that


humanitarian aid has, indeed, reached the Soviet citizens for whom it was primarily intended. I am sure that. I am not alone in welcoming the fact that the Government are considering establishing that by means of nongovernmental organisations such as the Red Cross and the excellent Crown Agents.
There is no shortage of food in the Soviet Union, which can cope easily with the food demands of its own population. The problem, which has created a crisis for, especially, those living in the cities, is the collapse of the distribution network in that huge country. While we may criticise a system that provides for shortages, we cannot get over the fact that it is the people themselves who are suffering.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: My hon. Friend said, rather woundingly, that I had been extreme. That is not in my nature.
The problems faced by those in the Soviet Union are very much of their own making. They gave thousands of millions of dollars of aid to Cuba, and still do so; they gave thousands of millions of dollars to support the fighting in Afghanistan, and thousands of millions of dollars to Iraq, all of whose weapons turned out to be like the weapons of toy soldiers.
The idea that someone is extreme, or is exposing himself in public, if he draws attention to such matters does not hold water. Russia must be told, "Your days are over." It is no good the hon. Gentlemen saying that it is extreme to say such things; by one means or another, we want a peaceful entente.

Mr. Robertson: First, let me apologise to the hon. Gentleman for calling him extreme. His moderation is highlighted by the fact that he calls me his hon. Friend.

Mr. Paul Boateng: His steering has gone.

Mr. Robertson: I assure my hon. Friend that the hon. Gentleman's steering has not gone. I took exception, however, to his implication that the Soviet Union no longer existed as a nation. Of course it has major problems, and considerable difficulties face its administration; but it is still there, and still represents a significant force in the world today. None of the facts adduced by the hon. Gentleman diminish that truth, but I accept his apologies for calling me a friend.
The debate also allows us to examine the mechanics of the European Community, and some of the more substantial programmes of technical assistance in which it has been involved, including the PHARE programme—Poland and Hungary assistance for economic restructuring. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how much of that programme will emanate from this country. As he will know better than I, PHARE programmes are initiated by individual Community countries. Accusations have been made, I hope unfairly, that we are not getting our fair share of the programmes set up under this admirable scheme. I am sure that the Minister will want to correct that impression before it is too widely accepted.
Last month, in an excellent article in the Financial Times, Mr. David Buchan—who provides an enormous amount of information for all of us—called the European Community the
World leader of the 'salvation army—.
Given the obligations that it has taken on under the G24 programmes, that is what it increasingly resembles.

The importance of our assistance to these countries should never be underestimated, and it would be helpful if the Community, as well as others, stopped calling it aid. Not only is that not a fair or accurate description of the technical and economic co-operation in which we are involved; it has the doubly harmful effect of legitimising an apparent competition with the third world. Assistance with the setting up of a stock market in Budapest, or a school for auditors in Prague, is radically different from the provision of food and medicine for starving babies in Ethiopia and Sudan. They must never be seen to be in competition for the same finite resources, and it is a matter of shame that some countries and individuals have raided one to pay for the other.
None the less, it may be prudent to remind ourselves why we are involved in the provision of assistance for central and eastern Europe. It has only a little to do with altruism and moral obligation and a good deal to do with self-interest. There is nothing unwise or reprehensible in that, of course, as self-interest has motivated international relationships down the centuries. It was, indeed, self-interest—interest in our own survival—that drove us for 45 years to invest vast, almost limitless, funds to defend ourselves from a threat from the military machine of the eastern bloc. It must be in that same self-interest to ensure that instability and economic self-destruction do riot become the hallmark of the newly liberated nations of eastern Europe.
We must welcome, as I am sure the Minister does, the moves by the Community to construct new association agreements, fashioned as European agreements to distinguish them from the others, which I hope will lead in the foreseeable future to full Community membership for those countries. It is also sensible that we restrict the countries, for the moment at least, to Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, but in the long term and even in the medium term we must not be seen to exclude Bulgaria and Romania.
More than anything else, it was a tide of unsatisfied consumer pressure—people materially denied by corrupt and unworkable economic systems—which finally swept away the communist states. How ironic it would be if a disillusionment with the alternative systems were to bring other nastier alternatives back to power.
Only two weeks ago Mr. Miklos Nemeth, the former Prime Minister of Hungary who is now, admirably, vice-president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, said:
The democracy of poverty is dictatorship. Real democracy can only be achieved against a background of economic security.
He concluded:
The future—not only the future of Central Europe but the safety of the whole of Europe, largely depends on how the former West and the former East are able to make this recognition a reality in practical economic co-operation.
Those were wise words to which we should listen with great care, as we should listen to the views of the Bank for International Settlements whose recent quarterly report made it clear that:
official aid is critical to the success of the economic reform in the region.
All that is self-evident, but it needs constant repetition to get the business and financial world to listen. I know that the Government have made great strides through the know-how funds, on the advisory board of which I serve with the Minister, and through the instruments that we are


extremely fortunate to have. In particular, I think of the British Council with its network already in place to ensure that our assistance gets right to the grassroots quickly. We should also pay tribute to the Confederation of British Industry, whose scheme for training managers has been a great success and, I understand, is to be expanded.

Mr. Foulkes: The co-operative movement, too.

Mr. Robertson: Indeed, I also pay tribute to the co-operative movement. It has acted as an example in setting up co-operatives and a form of a co-operative bank. Such matters cannot be left to luck and good fortune. Public stimulus will continue to be required if the private sector is to be encouraged to move into these regions.
In addition to the shock to the eastern economies brought about by having to pay new higher prices for Soviet oil and in hard currency at that, is the shock of the Gulf impact on overall oil prices and supply. Where it was difficult and dangerous to restructure economies, the task has been made even more dangerous and risky—all at a point where access to international lending has been severely restricted. Unemployment, a previously unknown experience, is rising in all the countries and it may well provide a breaking-point strain for the shaky, democratic institutions.
The practice of government is not strange to any of those countries, even if it is now much more difficult than when all dissent was suppressed. What is crucially missing is the practice of opposition—that patient, frustrating mixture of criticism of Government and the assembly of a palatable alternative. We have built up that expertise over 12 years and I am sure that the Minister will enjoy it before the year is out. That careful mixture of responsible, loyal opposition will be crucial for the long-term, political stability of those nations and is essential in providing a secure environment for economic investment.
Last week we received a prescient warning from two senior citizens of the central and east European environment. President Havel of Czechoslovakia said of his country:
The danger lies in permanent instability and chaos, which would affect not only neighbouring countries but also Europe and the entire world.
Then, in the words of Mr. Adam Michnik, the prominent Polish opposition figure and editor of the Solidarity daily newspaper, Gaseta Wyborcza—I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) for help in pronunciation because he trained in the diplomatic service and his language skills are much greater than mine:
the cult of the central plan has been replaced across Eastern Europe by the cult of the free market.
He also warned that these societies were psychologically unprepared to deal with the effects of that—unemployment and bankruptcies—at a time of rising consumerist expectations. Those are serious signals from serious, responsible, distinguished politicians in central Europe. They point to the problems which face them and which we must face.
The Minister was right to point out the qualitative and quantitative difference in the Soviet Union from that of the new democracies. It is right that we should treat carefully the type of assistance and its targeting that we give to the Soviet Union. I, too, believe that President Gorbachev

deserves and should continue to receive our support. After all, his experiment is a mere six years old and it has changed the face both of the USSR and the world. However, there are forces abroad in the Soviet Union—anti-western, right-wing and isolationist. That is a tide that we cannot encourage. It means that the assistance, both humanitarian food aid and technical, offered by the Community and Britain must be selectively directed and conditional on the maintenance of the improved human rights and reform record that we have seen since President Gorbachev came to power.
We cannot overstate the influence that we shall have. We must not be over-moralistic, because the size of the Soviet Union and its problems is so vast that its salvation can eventually come only from inside. We can make our views known and hope that they will help to keep the right pressure in the right direction.
There are major dangers ahead for the countries of east and central Europe, but we face some of those dangers ourselves. Just as the unification of Germany gained its impetus from the pressure to emigrate west if nothing was done, so if our assistance falters or if we fail to deliver what is necessary to underpin the democratic experiment that is going on, the fall-out may not stay easily confined at home and will certainly not be confined to the Oder-Neisse line. Sometimes I fear that it could become one of the biggest problems that we may face in the late 1990s. I believe in being optimistic and that there is a case for optimism, but that prospect is, indeed, a spectre that is realistically before us. That, alone, should be enough to motivate us for the better.

Sir Michael Marshall: I am glad to have the opportunity to follow the two Front-Bench spokesmen. It is important in these matters that, as far as possible, a common voice should come from this House, and I believe that it has. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister put the matter into perspective persuasively and helpfully and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), reflecting his work on the advisory body for the know-how funds and the Great Britain-East Europe Centre, brought breadth of vision to the subject. I welcome this debate, and I want to concentrate on Bulgaria for reasons which I shall explain.
I was glad to see the relatively late addition to the proposals of medical assistance, which has been added to food assistance in the cases of Romania and Bulgaria. I shall not repeat the arguments about the Soviet Union except to say that one of the best ways of helping the democratic and economic development that we all want in the Soviet Union is to help its former satellite countries to become successful in their own right. In a limited way they can show economic and democratic developments going hand in hand and working, and that may help the Soviet Union.
I wish to discuss Bulgaria partly because I am chairman of the British-Bulgarian parliamentary group and partly because Bulgaria has not featured as largely in these debates as it should have—partly because of its small size compared with that of the Soviet Union and also because countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland tend to have their natural constituencies of interest. They draw in private investment in a way that is more difficult for Romania and Bulgaria to achieve. Whatever one says


about Ceausescu's regime, it had at least the one great advantage of leaving his country with virtually no foreign debt, which gives Romania a certain amount of elbow room. Moreover, in the strange way in which these things happen on our country, media interest in Romania, for reasons on which I need not expand, has been great. In my constituency—this may be mirrored throughout the country—there is enormous interest in the voluntary sector in supporting Romania, especially its AIDS-infected babies. Every month a lorry with food and medical supplies leaves my constituency for Romania.
Against that background, I want to discuss Bulgaria's problems, which have gone largely unknown hitherto. I was glad to hear the Minister talking about the economic and political reforms which were recognised in the announcement of the know-how fund. The visit by President Zhelev was timely in that regard. There are grounds for optimism about a growing interest in Bulgaria given the number of exhanges between, for instance, this House and that country. There was a recent Inter-Parliamentary Union visit, and the CBI is looking into the possibility of joint ventures. The Great Britain-East Europe Centre, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) and certain Opposition Members serve, will also help to redress the balance and meet the need for greater understanding of the great humanitarian needs of Bulgaria.
I visited Bulgaria in 1988 for the first time since becoming a Member of this House, but I was there before, in the 1960s. There has been a sad progression in that country. It became almost helpless following the break-up of the traditional Soviet and east European trading patterns. Bulgaria is a small country with only 9 million people. In some ways it used to be the fruit basket of the communist bloc; suddenly it found itself in an exposed position. Its relationship with the Soviet Union broke down and the break-down of its barter trade with oil was also a factor.
Bulgaria produces oil but has to blend it with imports of oil, as does Britain, so it has experienced great difficulty because of rising oil prices and because—this brings us nearer to home—it is owed large sums of money by Iraq. Iraq's unwillingness to pay its debts of recent years has caused great difficulties for many countries, including Bulgaria.
Bulgaria is heavily dependent on electricity—hence the importance once again of oil. Almost everyone in Sofia cooks with electricity; vast numbers of people must sit hungry in the cold and dark. And there are chronic shortages of medicine.
The food shortages have not been as bad as they might have been because this winter has been relatively mild, but I am advised of extreme shortages of meat, eggs, butter, sugar, cheese and cooking oils. Prices are 10 times what they were a year ago. People can buy food, at uncontrolled prices, because of the slaughter of milk cows and of poultry that should really be used for egg production.
The motion this evening suggests a way of beginning to help to get a free market working in countries such as Bulgaria. The present price distortions are leading to hoarding and black marketeering. The urgent provision of food from Community surpluses gives us a chance to get prices back into balance and to make hoarding a less attractive proposition. I welcome the proposals in that direction in the motion.
I should like the Minister to put the food and medical aid that we are discussing in a wider context. What estimate has been made of the effect of this aid? How far will it meet the need and complement other aid of which we are aware? Over what period will it take effect? In what sense is it related to other relevant aid—for instance, for food production? Bulgaria used to be a natural food producer and processor; tourism was also important, and there was some light industry. It is of the utmost importance that the country's food production be restored. It is said that next year's harvest may be doomed for lack of the necessary agro-chemicals and investment.
Last December the state monopolies in tobacco, fruit, vegetables and poultry were all disbanded. They were closed down, and their component parts are now small companies in a free market economy. Naturally, I welcome that, but the process urgently requires certain skills and inward investment. The latter is arriving only slowly and Bulgaria has had to attract British companies in competition with other countries in central and eastern Europe. There are ways of helping the country internally—in management training, in finance and in marketing. I hope that the Minister will say a word or two about how the know-how fund is related to what we are discussing, and about how we shall bridge the gap between Bulgaria's needs and what it is receiving. I welcome the extension of the know-how funds to Bulgaria. It is clear that it is directly related to the process of trying to develop a free market.
How far does what we are currently doing help to forward the attempt by Bulgaria to establish a more free-standing and logical structure for its food and food processing industries? How far is that seen not just by the Government but by the Community as a continuing process of aid? There is a real fear of deaths this winter in Bulgaria and those who will suffer are the most vulnerable—the old and the very young. There are real problems of malnutrition and hypothermia and a shortage of medical supplies.
The hon. Member for Hamiliton was right to remind us that we cannot divorce the subject of the debate from the overwhelming problems in Africa and Asia which suffer from famine. However, in Bulgaria there are fears of famine. I am told that for some time there has been no insulin or none of the equipment that is necessary to test blood for the presence of hepatitis or AIDS. Drugs sold on prescription and even everyday drugs such as aspirin are not available.
Helping Bulgaria cannot be a matter just for the Government or our partners in the Community. Every hon. Member has a role. Widespread recognition has been accorded to Romania, and it is reasonable to suggest that it should extend to Bulgaria. It has many similar problems, but it has not received the level of media interest that can help to bring forward voluntary help. However, such interest can lead to unfair discrepancies of the type that I have sought to outline. I hope that all hon. Members agree that it would be reasonable and appropriate to urge people to extend to Bulgaria the voluntary activity that was harnessed to help Romania.
The Minister and the hon. Member for Hamilton said that there was a need to ensure that supplies get through. They will both be aware of the new and dynamic ambassador, Mr. Ivan Stancioff, at the Bulgarian embassy. That shows that Bulgaria is addressing the problem, and I am advised that there is a depot in Reading


to which those who want to send voluntary supplies of food and medicine can apply. Such people can be assured that the supplies will be supervised and directed to the proper outlets. To make the point plain, the ambassador has said that those who wish to travel with such supplies or to take them under their own steam may do so. Such openness is encouraging to the voluntary sector.
I detect some scope for joint ventures and the like, and there is some dialogue about economic progress. However, the Bulgarian Parliament and Government still have a long way to go in making their legislation more attractive and relevant to inward investors. I know that they seek such investment.
The aid that we are debating is important in the wider sense in helping to create successful economic and political conditions in the small countries of central and eastern Europe. Such aid is relevant not only to their needs, but to the wider challenges in the Soviet Union. The proposals meet a genuine humanitarian need and it is appropriate that the House should direct itself to the problem because, as I have said, all hon. Members have a part to play.

Mr. Tom Cox: This interesting debate touches on issues that of late we have not had the time to discuss. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall). He did not mention it in his speech, but he is the past chairman of the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Over the past 18 months that group has been greatly involved in helping the countries of central and eastern Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and I were officers in the IPU under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Arundel, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would join me in paying a warm tribute to the hon. Gentleman's work to improve our relationships with other European countries.
I and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who are members of the Council of Europe, have over the past 18 months seen very great changes. Many of the central and eastern European countries have delegates and delegations at our meetings and at committees in the Council of Europe. We are now starting to hear first-hand accounts of the problems that those countries face and they are beginning to tell us about their hopes and aspirations.
For 40 years the countries of western Europe were calling for freedom and democracy in eastern Europe. Now that the process has started, we have a responsibility to help those countries. We have the skills, the knowledge and the wealth, and we must share them. One now meets many representatives from eastern Europe at conferences and meetings. Many of them thought that the changes would be based on western economic systems and that the benefits that flow from such systems would soon start to appear for them. That has not happened and it will not happen for a long time. Such benefits will emerge in those countries, but we must pay attention to the problems that are beginning to appear there now.
It is all very well to debate these matters and to provide technical assistance, but if we do not start to help these countries face the social problems that are involved in the changes that are taking place, we shall be letting them

down. Such is the extent of unemployment in central and eastern European countries that a meeting of the social and health committee of the Council of Europe which I shall attend in Paris on Friday will have that issue on its agenda. The meeting has been arranged basically to discuss the unemployment and social unrest that are starting to develop in the countries of central and eastern Europe. These developments are of crucial importance to the United Kingdom and other western European countries that have knowledge of the problems and an understanding of how to deal with them. We and other western European countries must share our knowledge with the countries of central and eastern Europe.
Associated with the problem of unemployment are women's employment rights and employment opportunities, which are not always fully considered. We must give consideration to the provision of social assistance for the very poor. We know that there are many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in central and eastern Europe who are extremely poor. They need help. We must bear in mind also the needs of the elderly and the disabled. We must accept these responsibilities and offer practical assistance.
Over the past 18 months, vast sums have been given by way of grants to central and eastern Europe. There are many examples, but I shall quote only two or three. The International Monetary Fund gave US $710 million to Poland. A similar programme for Hungary amounted to US $210 million. There is a World bank credit of US $5,000 million to central and eastern European countries that will be spread over three years. There was a Japanese aid package of US $1,200 million for Hungary and Poland. These are substantial sums. Whatever countries the financial aid may come from, the moneys come from taxpayers. We have a right to discuss economic systems with the beneficiaries as we have a right also to encourage them to follow certain systems.
Many of the countries that are receiving aid have great potential. We are discussing the provision of agricultural assistance to three countries and certainly two of them—the Soviet Union and Romania—and possibly the third, Bulgaria, have the most enormous potential for development. Sadly, such development has not taken place for year after year. Surely we have a right to ask what is happening in these countries. We have a right to seek to modernise and develop their agriculture systems. Any of us who have even a limited knowledge of the way in which agriculture is practised in the United Kingdom know that nowadays it is possible to make enormous strides extremely quickly.
What encouragement are we giving to central and eastern European countries? No one writes to me stating that the food surpluses within the EEC should be given to central and eastern European countries. Instead, I receive many letters in which I am told that food surpluses are yet another example of the inefficiency of the common agricultural policy. The writers of these letters are critical that we are having to give away the results of excess production.
Bearing in mind the moneys that we are talking about, we have a right to ask about distribution. How will food aid be distributed, for example? The Minister has outlined how he understands that distribution will take place, and it seems that there will be a fairly elaborate organisation to ensure that the food will go to those who need it most in the areas where it is most needed. Will this be a one-off


operation or are we talking of one of many similar food assistance programmes that will be made available to central and eastern European countries in future? If there are to be future programmes, we should be told. We are talking about sizeable sums when we consider the value of the food aid programme.
I have not heard anyone mention what type of food we are to supply to these countries and it would be interesting to be told. Also, what quantity of food will be made available?
I have no basic disagreement with giving such assistance. All hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, and certainly the Front-Bench spokesmen, have outlined the need to help countries that are facing enormous food shortages. However, I do not think that we have any right to approve such assistance without being told that the project that we are involved in is subject to close scrutiny and that discussions are taking place with the countries that we seek to help on how their agricultural systems will be developed.
The hon. Member for Arundel mentioned fertilisers and the chemicals that we all know are used in modern agricultural production. If countries in central and eastern Europe are to develop modern agricultural systems they will need such items. How will they pay for them? We know that all those countries have problems getting hard currency which will allow them to buy the sorts of commodities to ensure that their markets can produce goods that will sell to the rest of the world.
I welcome this debate as it has allowed us to touch on many of the arguments that interest hon. Members who seek to involve themselves in central and eastern Europe—whatever their background. However, questions need to be asked because my constituents will ask me about their pensions, the health service and the education system and, although we may be talking about a relatively small sum of money, it is still taxpayers' money. Therefore, as have outlined, we have a right to know how it will be spent and what we are seeking to do to encourage these countries to develop agricultural systems which would allow them to produce food to feed the needs of their countrymen and women.

Mr. David Tredinnick: I shall confine my remarks principally to the last sentence of the motion:
that consideration of any other forms of Community help should take full account of developments in the Soviet Union and the Baltic States".
It is far better to support the reforms that President Gorbachev has set in train, however imperfect, than to risk assisting the forces that wish for a change of leader in the Soviet Union. It cannot be disputed that President Gorbachev's Russia has brought enormous benefits to the west and these must not be forgotten.
First and foremost was the ending of the cold war after 40 years, and, secondly, there was the liberation of eastern Europe. I had the unique opportunity to stand behind President Havel in Czechoslovakia on the balcony of the Civil Forum headquarters on election day—the first democratic election since the second world war—and to hear the great roar from the massive crowd in Wenceslas square when he stepped out on to the balcony. That brought home to me the tremendous strength and work of the reform movement and it would not have happened had it not been for President Gorbachev.
Thirdly, the whole of Germany is in NATO. It would have been inconceivable a couple of years ago that the former Soviet front line would be within NATO. The fourth benefit is the United Nations co-operation which the Soviet Union is now engaged in.
Had it not been for the new climate that President Gorbachev and, to a certain extent, President Bush have brought about, I suggest that it would have been unthinkable for the Soviet Union not to have supported Saddam Hussein. We must be grateful that President Gorbachev's enlightened policies have made the sea change in Soviet foreign policy possible.
I welcome the food aid, the guarantee credits, the technical assistance and the wide range of agreements for improving relations that the motion calls for. I understand and do not object to the need for conditions, but hope that we will show a great understanding for the Soviet Union's attempts to make monumental political and economic changes. I accept that the reforms have not progressed fast enough but suggest that we cast our minds back and remember that it took a long time—nearly 100 years—for the House to become democratic. The first Reform Act was in 1832, the second in 1869, but full universal franchise did not take place until 1918. We must consider the position of other European countries. Switzerland does not offer the vote to women. When we consider how long the reforms in the Soviet Union are taking, perhaps we should compare them with the time that democratic reforms took in this country.
We should also remember that we support other non-democratic regimes. Some of our Arab allies in the Gulf are not democratic. In a sense, therefore, our restrictions on aid to the Soviet Union are selective. In considering the problems that the Soviet Union faces., I should mention the strategic concerns that influence their attitude to reform and aid packages. The Soviet Union faces, through the possible loss of the Baltic states, the loss of Riga, its main Baltic port for the Russian navy. It also faces the problem of that old part of east Prussia and the city of Kaliningrad, which can be accessed only through Lithuania. Those are major problems for the Soviet Union.
I agree that it is reasonable to provide conditional aid to the Soviet Union. The deaths of citizens in the Baltic states have been worrying and are to be regretted, but we must not forget that President Gorbachev responded to western concerns by withdrawing troops from the Baltics. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) mentioned that matter and said that he was worried about the economic effect of the loss of the Baltics, which play a key part in the Soviet Union's economy.
I therefore caution against pressing President Gorbachev too far. I believe that a successor would be much worse for the west. We could have a Ligachev-type conservative and the KGB could gain greater control. Marshall Yasov and the Soviet army might be in a much more powerful position. It is a time of great heart searching for the Soviet army, which has lost Afghanistan, the front line in eastern Europe and, recently, an important client—Iraq.
I have argued that we may be stopping reforms by restricting aid to the USSR, so let us not lose sight of the fact that President Gorbachev has moved away from confrontation. It is better to support him now, because otherwise we may lose the ratification of the arms treaties


and face the tremendous resistance of the Soviet army to moving out of eastern Europe. It cannot have been easy to sell the problem of moving half a million troops out of east Germany and there have already been problems with the timetable of the Soviet withdrawal from Poland. There are additional domestic problems facing the Soviet Union, especially its President. The Soviet Union is trying to embrace western economics. It suffers from a lack of skills and resources. Could we imagine embracing, countrywide, a completely different, communist economy, and working that through down the line managers to the factory floor? The Russians are trying to import our system. That does not happen overnight, but needs time to settle down.
The unemployment problems have also been mentioned. I support the conditions referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister because they give us influence over the reform process and enable us, in a small way, to shape it. They encourage the USSR to look west and outward, and prevent it from turning inward.
On Sunday, I shall lead an eight-member delegation from the House to the Soviet Union under the auspices of the British Atlantic group of young politicians, of which I am fortunate to be chairman. It is a return for the visit we organised for the Russians to come to Lancaster house for our conference in the spring of last year. The newly elected members who came were open to embracing our ideas and looked for help from the west. In my recent discussions with the Soviets prior to making our visit to the Soviet Union next week I found them open. They wanted to hear our views on how to solve their problems and have asked us to offer advice when we go there.
We should show the understanding to which I referred and continue to offer aid. We should not be afraid to support Mikhail Gorbachev, without whom the seismic changes in east-west relations, the arms reductions and the brave domestic reforms would not have been possible.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: None of us can but approve of the Government's decision to give humanitarian aid to the Soviet Union and the countries of eastern Europe. But—and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) is not present to hear me say this—it is in the interests of the United Kingdom and the peoples of western Europe as well as those of eastern Europe to give that aid. In fact, Britain has been laggardly in giving assistance in comparison with its European Community partners.
Some months ago, in the late summer of last year, Helmut Kohl warned of the dangers of a Russian invasion—not of the Red army but of Russian people—who, this year, will be free to travel where they will under a law being passed by the Supreme Soviet. There is a great danger of many of those people coming to western Europe. They will not go simply to Germany; many of them will find their way to Britain and will, possibly, become a problem.
The Soviet Union's need for aid is not directed by dire poverty such as exists in some south-east Asian or African countries, on the scale that I saw in the Philippines—not even Romania—only last August. The Soviet Union's problem is its close proximity to western Europe and its highly commercialised economies ruled by consumer

societies. One has only to go to Berlin to see Russian soldiers selling uniforms and giving up various goods in exchange for hard currency to know that what I am saying is absolutely true.
Many important points have been made about aid to eastern Europe, particularly that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) in respect of the social problems. I have spoken to people in eastern Germany who now face—even under the advanced western economy of West Germany—severe problems of unemployment and price rises.
I wish to deal mainly with the problems facing Romania. About an hour ago, the former leader of the Liberal party, who is not here now, talked about not allowing the ancien regimes to claim credit. However, I counsel caution because that may lead people to think that because the National Salvation Front won the election in Romania in May 1990, and because of some of its Government's actions since then, there is reason to withhold aid from Romania. It is important that we give humanitarian aid to the Romanian people.
I went to Romania with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) to witness the elections. We must bear it in mind that Romania has never known democracy and has been ruled by dictatorships for the past 120 years since independence—fascist dictatorships such as that of Antonescu before and during the second world war and the Stalinist dictatorships since then.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South agreed with me that the election fought in May 1990 was, as far as we could see, carried out with tremendous energy by all the political parties in Bucharest, Timisoara, Ligova and small villages in Transylvania to ensure that they got it right and that it was a completely free election.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wareing: I shall give way in a moment.
The people to whom we spoke said that they felt completely free either to support the National Salvation Front or to vote against it.

Mr. Dunn: I apologise for intervening as I have not been here for most of the debate. I was interested in a point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing). Is not it a fact that in the elections to which he referred more people voted than were entitled to do so? When directing humanitarian aid to a country that does not know or has any experience of the freedoms that we take for granted, is not it important to ensure that we monitor aid so that it reaches the people who need it and does not go to officials who sell it on the black market?

Mr. Wareing: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's latter point. There is no real evidence to suggest that in the elections the figures did not tally with the number of people entitled to vote. Certainly, in the areas in which we witnessed the elections, they were carried out scrupulously fairly. One of the precautions taken in Romania—which we do not even take in this country—was that everybody had to show an identity card which, of course, we do not have. Even the ballot papers were not numbered, whereas they are here and there is a perfectly good reason for that. The elections were carried out fairly.
The problem in Romania, which should not be lost on us, is that a free election is not the sole criterion for


democracy. There is also the matter of give and take and of tolerance. The Opposition and the Government tolerate each other. After June or October, or whenever, we shall be on the other side of the House and I know that the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) will tolerate the decision of the British electorate. Nevertheless, that is not the case in Romania where we must consider not only the Government who won the election but the Opposition. The Opposition in Romania have a few lessons to learn. We should support them in order to stimulate democratic discussion and to promote democracy. We could do that because there was great hope during the elections of May 1990. There is no doubt about that.
Romania should be given food aid. The Minister referred to technical assistance, but we must remember that, in the past, Romania was the granary for south-eastern Europe. The Danube basin was extremely prosperous in the past and Romania was responsible for the export of wheat and other foodstuffs. As the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) said, Romania was the only country in eastern Europe that did not have an overseas debt, but that was achieved by sacrificing the lives of Romanians. If Romania is to trade rather than just receive aid in the future, it must have the means to obtain hard currency.
Until December of last year Romania was still exporting food and it sold processed food products to this country—many of them were sold under famous brand names in our supermarkets. We should help Romania to feed its people by re-establishing some of the industries that existed under Ceausescu so that it can export to the rest of the world to receive the hard currency that would be of vital assistance now.
When the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South and I were in Romania, we witnessed the conditions in the children's hospital at Timisoara. We saw dedicated nurses and surgeons and other assistants carrying out their work in difficult conditions. The hospital building was extremely old—that is not unusual, as we have many similar buildings in this country—but the equipment in the operating theatres was also extremely old.
If we intend to provide food for Romanian children, it is as well that we consider the conditions in which that food will be processed. The kitchens in the hospital were old and the equipment was near derelict. The floors were full of crevices and those crevices were full of germ-ridden water. Such were the conditions in a children's hospital, the children were crowded almost one on top of the other because of the cramped conditions. It is not just a matter of providing food; we must provide the technical assistance to improve the Romanian health service. I am a little diffident about asking the Government to do anything to assist a national health service as they have been deficient in providing help for our own, but there is a real need in that part of the world.
To assist Romania, we must work with the existing Romanian Government. Obviously we want to stimulate reform, but we must not hold back from assisting the children in the hospitals, the old and those in poverty simply because we do not like the colour of the National Salvation Front Government.
The liberty of western Europe can suvive only if our brethren in the east are similarly liberated. We must bear with them because they have not known democratic government as long as we have. The history of Romania is different from our own. It only emerged from the Ottoman

empire in the 1860s and, until now, it has never known democracy. We must try to get alongside the Romanian Government to give all the assistance that we can.
I hope that the Government will be much more to the fore in the European Community. As I said, I welcome the efforts of the European Community, but I should like the Minister to say something about the scale of our assistance within the programme of the European Community as compared with that of Germany, France and our other European partners. No statistics have been given by the Minister on the documents other than the global sums. What will Britain's contribution be, and what form will it take?

Mr. Roger Gale: We are discussing European documents. I wish to press my hon. and learned Friend the Minister a little on the European dimension of this matter and the European approach to it. We recently experienced a lack of cohesion in the European approach to matters in the Gulf. There has been a reawakening of concern in this country—perhaps a slight diminishing of the euphoria about Europe—and a realisation that, in respect of foreign policy at least, the EC still has much to learn. My hon. and learned Friend has said that the Government support Gorbachev the reformer, not Gorbachev the man, that the delivery of support will be related directly to the fact of reform and that that support is not in any way intended to be unconditional. That is the United Kingdom approach, and that is why the Prime Minister will meet first with Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian representatives on his arrival in Moscow tonight.
However, we are discussing European documents and European Community aid. Is it to be made plain in the Council of Ministers that the delivery of support rests upon the fact of reform? Will the Commission hold something in reserve? Will EC technical assistance depend upon economic and political change, or will EC sectarian commercial interests dictate the pace of aid? I should like to know from my hon. and learned Friend the answers to those questions and how he regards the attitude of the Council of Ministers towards the conditions upon which aid is given—the conditions that the Government understand.
Like many other hon. Members, I refer briefly to the situation in Romania. I have a personal interest because my wife is a trustee of the Romanian orphans trust. In recent weeks there have been rather sad and damaging allegations that charity aid, having arrived in Romania, has been misappropriated, that goods have been stolen and sold on the black market, and that assistance that was ostensibly destined for those in terrifying need has been directed elsewhere. Those allegations have been extremely damaging to the cause of those who have been seeking to provide aid from this country. That is why the Romanian orphans trust has concentrated its aid programme upon aid in the form of personnel—for example, doctors, nurses, and paediatricians in child care assistance—upon training Romanians who, at some point, will need to take over the care of the literally thousands of orphans who are still in need in that country, and upon medicines and other essential goods that have been ordered by Romanian orphans trust personnel so that they are targeted and delivered directly to aid teams. Those involved with the Romanian orphans trust are confident that the aid that is


so generously given by people in this country reaches the people for whom it is intended and the children towards whom it is directed.
In his reply to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), my hon. and learned Friend said that Government aid was targeted at the genuinely needy. Is the method of distributing European Community aid genuinely secure? Can the European Community ensure that goods that it sends to Romania will not be sold on the black market or used to prop up the old guard? The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) said that our constituents, including pensioners, as well as children who donate pocket money, have a right to know where their money is going. They want to know that it is being well spent—that it is not being used to prop up regimes of which they do not approve, or otherwise misappropriated.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend can assure the House that the European Community and its Council of Ministers will take as much care to safeguard the direction of aid to Romania as is taken by charities like the Romanian orphans trust. I hope, too, that the Council of Ministers will seek to increase the pace of change in Romania. There, as elsewhere in the eastern bloc, aid must be dependent upon economic and political improvements. At the moment, the pace of those improvements is very slow.
Finally, I wish to refer briefly to the situation in the Baltic states. A few weeks ago, I was very privileged to be asked to address a rally in Trafalgar square. On Nelson's column, behind me, were the names of the Lithuanians who had been murdered a few days earlier. In those circumstances, it is not surprising that feeling among the Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians at that rally was running very high indeed. Those people made one thing very plain to me, and I, in turn, should like to offer it to the House. They believe that support should be for reform—as was said earlier, not for Gorbachev the reformer or Gorbachev the man, but simply for reform. If President Gorbachev is able to maintain the pace of reform in the eastern bloc, he will deserve support. However, if he is unable to do so, this country and Europe must transfer support and allegiance to those who are prepared to carry the banner of reform.
There have been signs of recognition on the part of the Soviets that the murders in Lithuania were a tremendous mistake, and that they have had very severe and damaging political repercussions. But will the Soviet Government now recognise the strength of the plebiscites in the Baltic states? Can my hon. and learned Friend make plain in the Council of Ministers, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make plain in Moscow this week, that European Community financial, food and technical aid is not, and never will be, unconditional or open-ended?

Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) was right to ask some basic questions about the disbursement of aid to Romania and to stress that, as the Minister has said, we support not President Gorbachev the man but what he has represented in the past and what he may still be able to represent. We benefited from the hon. Gentleman's

knowledge of Romania and from the knowledge and experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who is passionately concerned about the needs of Romania. As has been said, we may give emergency food aid, but beyond that is the infrastructure, including the hospital, which still leaves children in a desperate situation.
I am pleased that a number of hon. Members were able to benefit not only from their experience of visiting these countries but from the organisations in which they have played a part. I think particularly here of the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) who, in the time that he was the chairman of the Inter-Parliamentary Union group, contributed to the tremendous upsurge in the range of contacts with eastern Europe. I believe that it was his prompting that led to two missions—his own to Bulgaria and that on which my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby went. That gave him the background knowledge that he passed on to the House earlier.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) drew on his experience of the Council of Europe and helped the House in so doing. The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), with his experience of young politicians, asked basic questions about the role of President Gorbachev. There are worries about the direction in which the Soviet Union is going and some point to the moves that President Gorbachev has made to please the conservatives, to the centralising power that he has given himself, to the bypassing of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and of the constituent republics, to his outright opposition to the private ownership of land, to the replacement of the Minister of the Interior by the hardliners and to the nature of the vice president whom he appointed. However, taking all that into consideration, we have to give him the credit for the path along which the Soviet Union has come, which has had such major effects both on eastern and western Europe and on matters such as the Gulf crisis, in which the Soviet Union played an important and constructive role.
Last week, I was in the Baltic republics and a number of the political leaders complained about the slow down in reforms and the slowness of the pace of advance. However, I urge them to look back over the past few years and to realise how far they have come in such a short time and to use that to put into perspective their current position.
All hon. Members who have spoken have endorsed the general proposition of linkage. As the Minister said, we are making it clear to the Soviet Union that there is a link between the readiness of the European Community to provide aid and assistance and the continuation of its reform process. The debate has been useful in setting out general principles to be followed in future. It is timely not only because of the discussion between foreign Ministers in Brussels today but because of the two advisory votes yesterday in Estonia and Latvia. If any proof was necessary, those two votes, taken with the one in January that made clear the views of Lithuania, showed the determination of the three republics to set out on the path to independence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was correct, using a rather magisterial and broad brush approach, to set recent developments in the context of the whole of eastern and central Europe. Last week I paid a fascinating visit to Moscow and the three Baltic republics. In Moscow I met the two key members of the Central Committee who were responsible for both


foreign relations and for national relations within the Soviet Union. I also met all the leaders of the Baltic republics who were available at the time. It is perhaps, therefore, inevitable that I shall concentrate on the USSR, but any comments that I make on food aid may be relevant to Bulgaria and Romania, the special needs of which were dealt with by the hon. Member for Arundel and my hon. Friends the Members for Tooting and for West Derby.
All of us recall the harrowing stories that we read in the press and the pictures that we saw on television at the end of last year about the food shortages in the Soviet Union and the need for food aid there. At the time, the Council of the European Community rushed to respond to the perceived needs. There were, indeed, food shortages, but some argue that a basic cause of the shortages was the struggle for power between the centralised bureaucracy and the command economy in the Kremlin, and the new power structure that is developing within the constituent republics. It was clear in Moscow last week that the Kremlin is on one side, while on the other side is the large building that houses the alternative power structure of Mr. Yeltsin in the RSFSR—the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic. As the Minister conceded, any external intervention that aims to improve the food supply for the population must take into account the political realities in the Soviet Union today.
I have heard reports of a shortage of medical supplies in the Soviet Union as well as in both Bulgaria and Romania. Those shortages are now being met or at least assisted by the EC proposals. I shall be grateful if the Minister will tell us whether he accepts that there is a need for basic medical supplies in the Soviet Union, down to things such as aspirins and syringes. Why have those basic medical needs, which are humanitarian, not being included in the current package?
In terms of food aid, there appears to have been some correlation between those places in the Soviet Union that are the worst affected, including Moscow, Leningrad, the three Ural towns of Perm, Chelybinsk, and Sverdlovsk, which are the cities with the most democratic city councils, and the lack of food in, say, Kharkov, which is on the fringe of the black earth region.
Although the basic reason for the food shortages was the breakdown last year of the traditional distribution system of the command economy, we must remember that there was also a record harvest of 240 million tonnes. The breakdown of that distribution system opened the way for substantial corruption and political manipulation of the food supply. It looks as though the European Community has taken on board the fact that the various power elements in the Soviet Union, such as old regimes of the KGB and the army, have had opportunities to manipulate the supply of food.
As Mr. Yeltsin has suggested, another means of distribution could be via the constituent republics or through the various non-governmental organisations, including the International Red Cross. Each of those channels of distribution has particular political implications in terms of the present power struggle. For example, in Moscow, with its 'radical city council, a common explanation for the shortages was the attempt by more conservative elements to block off Moscow. Part of the evidence for that was that, on one day, nine of the 10 oblasts that were supplying milk to Moscow stopped that supply as if that was a co-ordinated act on behalf of the traditional suppliers of milk to the capital. I am glad

that the Government seem to be alert to that factor and will be ready to recognise the political implications of the selected supply systems. The Minister has already referred to the attempt by the EEC to set up co-ordinating and monitoring organisations.
Will the Minister ensure, so far as he is able, that the political implications of the distribution of food are carefully monitored in the Soviet Union? He has already referred to the nature of the bodies under article 2, and I hope that he will ensure that they have proper facilities to monitor that aid.
What is the British position about the tying of the credits to EC suppliers? I understand that there is some dispute within the EC about whether the food aid should be tied specifically to EC suppliers or whether it should be open. It is said that the British Government are on the side of having as open a system as possible, and we should be in that camp.
It appears from the documents that the European Community will pay for the transport costs of the food aid and the food provided under the credits unless the recipient country takes over the supply from within the Community. Why, taking up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting and by the hon. Member for Thanet, North who sought to defend taxpayers, should that be the case? With regard to the transport of grain to ports, even if the supply is transported in Community ships, why should the local costs of the supply be taken over thereafter by the Soviet Union? The food is provided free and I wonder whether the transport position is as inflexible as it appears from the rules.
With regard to the last part of the motion about linkage with the pace and nature of reform within the Baltic republics, last week when I met responsible leaders within the three Baltic republics, they were all most grateful for the robust response of the European Community on 22 January. They feared that the understandable concentration of western Europe on the Gulf would have distracted attention from the plight of the Baltic states. They feared that there was the precedent of the Suez adventure and Hungary. They were therefore surprised and delighted at the swift European Community response on 22 January to the killings in Vilnius on 13 January and in Riga on 20 January.
The effect of linkage on the Soviet Union has a good precedent. The Minister is probably aware of the Jackson-Vannick amendment on the linking of the emigration of Soviet Jews to American assistance to the Soviet Union and the very important effect that that had on an important internal policy within the Soviet Union.
The Minister stated that delegations have been selected by the Soviet Union to begin discussions. I raised that point with Estonia leaders, for example, and although they accept that working groups have been established, they complain that Estonia—perhaps the most cautious and realistic of the Soviet republics—finds it difficult to get any response from their interlocutors within the central Government apparatus. They claim that there is no authority or mandate, and that it is impossible to obtain answers on that or any other matter from the Kremlin, which seems paralysed in its indecision. Perhaps the establishment of the working groups is not as favourable and as much of a step forward as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. There is evidence of the Kremlin taking a harder line towards the republics.
The Community's response is proper because the linkage has been made, and the stick is available to be used if necessary. No doubt the Prime Minister is, in his best diplomatic way, making that point clear to the Soviet Union.
Obviously we must maintain our human rights credentials in relation to the republics, but we must equally acknowledge the Soviet Union's legitimate concerns about a change within the Baltic republics that is too abrupt. We must recognise the Soviet Union's needs in terms of its national security, particularly at a time when we are seeing the dissolution of the Warsaw treaty framework.
We must recognise also the minority situation within the Baltic republics, and their economic importance to the Soviet Union—the port of Riga has been mentioned already. A balance must be struck.
We are very ready to endorse the broad line taken by the Government in relation to credit guarantees and technical co-operation. We shall monitor carefully the political situation in the Soviet Union, particularly in respect of the Baltic republics, and will frame our policy acccordingly.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their considerable support of the Government's position. I thank in particular the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) for his support of Government policy, but he will forgive me if I correct one error that he made. Projects under the PHARE programme are suggested not by Community member states but by the recipient Governments.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to detail the allocation of the projects granted to United Kingdom firms. I do not have those figures, and I do not believe that they are readily available. However, I will investigate that matter to see whether I can give the hon. Gentleman any guidance.
The hon. Member for Hamilton is concerned, for reasons I well understand, that the food programmes will not result in losses to the developing world. He probably fears that money going to eastern Europe might be at the expense of third world countries. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that assistance for central and eastern Europe is kept separate from, and is additional to, that given to the developing world. I hope that that reassures him.
I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) said about the needs of smaller countries in eastern Europe. As he said, it is easy to overlook those needs, especially when the countries concerned lack a vocal pressure group. My hon. Friend has done Bulgaria a service by urging its case with such eloquence; as he will know, President Zhelev was here two weeks ago, and that visit alone will have given an increased focus to the requirements of his country.
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, within the European Community, substantial sums are being sent, or have been sent, to Bulgaria: under the PHARE programme, £17·2 million went in the second half of 1990 alone. Of that, £11·2 million was for a support programme for agricultural reform and the promotion of private agriculture.

Sir Michael Marshall: That summary was very helpful. Given the spirit of accord that has prevailed tonight, it is

only right that I should mention Gladstone—as the Liberals cannot help us there. There is a long and honourable parliamentary tradition in this regard, and I feel encouraged by what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has said.

Mr. Hogg: I thank my hon. Friend. He also raised Bulgaria's wider financial needs, having in mind the effects of the Gulf crisis and the reform of the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance. Those important issues are being addressed by the IMF and the G24 countries. As my hon. Friend knows, the Community plays a dominant and generous role within the G24, and the Economic and Finance Council will discuss EC financial help for Bulgaria during the year.
The hon. Member for Tooting made a number of substantial points. I assure him that many hon. Members have written to me suggesting that the Community's agricultural surpluses be sent to eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. We are now trying to avoid the accumulation of food stockpiles, and the Government—along with others—have worked hard to reduce the food mountain. But, if such surpluses exist, it surely makes sense to send them to the countries that need food most.
The hon. Gentleman made a powerful case for agricultural reform, and I agree with much of what he said. That is why PHARE projects concentrate on agricultural reform, among other things. In 1990, we committed for agricultural reform £70 million to Poland, £14 million to Hungary and £11·2 million to Bulgaria. Resources will be available to Romania, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia during 1991, if they seek those resources.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) made an important point when he stressed the importance of President Gorbachev's contribution, not only to the Soviet Union but elsewhere in Europe. I agree with his view that no other Soviet leader has so far appeared who is likely to be a more effective proponent of the cause of reform. He is also right in saying that the west has a real investment in President Gorbachev: he listed a number of instances in which that was particularly true. I hope that he will forgive me for adding that our support cannot be unqualified or uncritical. Although I agree with most of what he said, I hope that he will understand that the Government can support Mr. Gorbachev only provided that he remains a reformer.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) drew on a wealth of personal experience from his visit to Romania with my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). Clearly, that was a particularly interesting visit. I am sure that my hon. Friend played a prominent role in whatever happened there, no doubt appearing on television and radio on many an occasion. Obviously, it was an invaluable experience for them both and the House is indebted to the hon. Gentleman for sharing it with us.
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, in addition to the medical aid for Romania and Bulgaria, which is the aid that we are discussing tonight, there has been other aid in the past, most notably £500,000 provided by Her Majesty's Government in 1990 and more than £9 million already provided through the European Community. As he knows, our contribution to EC expenditure is about 18 per cent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) raised several important points. The Council of


Ministers is, indeed, agreed that reform within the Soviet Union should be a condition of its receiving assistance under the programmes. That is why it sought close member state involvement in the disbursement of aid through a management committee of the kind that I have already described to the House. If there is a serious deterioration in conditions within the Soviet Union or elsewhere in eastern Europe, aid would be suspended.
We have secured Council of Ministers agreement to full monitoring of the Community's assistance to Romania. That is an essential condition of the European Community providing successful aid. In answer to the question about monitoring the help provided last year to Romanian orphanages, I am pleased to say that the Crown Agents were instrumental in ensuring that Community aid reached those who needed it most and for whom the European Community had sent it.
I agree profoundly with my hon. Friend that we are supporting reform. In one sense, it matters not who provides that policy of reform. Our objective is to support reform and our assistance is conditional on the provision of that reform.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) asked why no medical aid was included in the package of aid for the Soviet Union. I must give the honest answer that I do not know. I have been scratching my head and asking myself, not to say my officials, and I suspect that the truthful answer is that it was never raised. That may be a partial answer to the question whether there is a serious shortfall, or at least a perceived one, which may well be different, within the Soviet Union.
It is also more difficult to distribute medical aid directly to the needy. Food aid is one thing, medical aid is another. It is rather difficult to see how as a general proposition one could distribute medical aid other than through the established institutions of society.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm that when embarking on a policy of distribution we would take into account the political implications of the methods used to make distribution. I can confirm that that is the case. The Council of Ministers decided that food credits should finance food from the European Community, although we would have agreed to finance some purchases from European countries.
The modalities of supply are still being worked out. That extends also to the transport arrangements, but if the Soviet Union is in a position to pay for the transport costs it seems rather difficult to see why it should not do so.
I trust that I have responded to most of the questions that I have been asked, and I thank right hon. and hon. Members for the support that they have given to the policy outlined in the documents.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
hat this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10880/90+CORI and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by H. M. Treasury on 22nd February, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 26th February relating to extension of food assistance to the Soviet Union, Romania and Bulgaria and a credit facility for the Soviet Union and 4120/91 relating to revision of the financial perspective to finance technical assistance for the Soviet Union; and agrees with the Government that food aid to Romania and Bulgaria should be considered a priority; that any Community food aid given to the Soviet Union should be provided for humanitarian

purposes; and that consideration of any other forms of Community help should take full account of developments in the Soviet Union and the Baltic States.

Orders of the Day — Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on motions Nos. 5 to 10 on the Order Paper.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;.).

INCOME TAX

That the draft Income Tax (Building Societies) (Annual Payments) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.

RATING AND VALUATION

That the draft Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.

RATING AND VALUATION

That the draft Scottish Hydro-Electric plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.

RATING AND VALUATION

That the draft Scottish Nuclear Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.

RATING AND VALUATION

That the draft Scottish Power plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;.) and the Order [18th February].

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION

That the draft revised Code of Practice on time off for trade union duties and activities, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees)

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

That this House takes note of the European Community Document No. 10149/90, relating to the promotion of energy efficiency in the Community (SAVE programme); and supports the Government's intention of ensuring that it results in effective and properly co-ordinated measures in those areas where they are appropriate.

COMMUNITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7057/90 relating to agricultural and agro-industrial research (1990–94); and endorses the Government's view that Community support for research in these areas should be given a high priority.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PIG HUSBANDRY BILL

Ordered,
hat it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Pig Husbandry Bill that it have power to make amendments to the Bill to extend the prohibitions contained in the Bill to all pigs and to tethering by any means.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Orders of the Day — Roads (Greater Manchester)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Mr. Terry Lewis: This debate is entitled on the Order Paper "Roads in Manchester". I am glad to have the opportunity to point out to the Minister that that is a misprint. It should have read, "Roads in Greater Manchester". The Minister will know from private conversations that roads have been the subject of a great deal of controversy in my constituency and in the constituencies of other hon. Members. I refer of course to the Greater Manchester western and northern relief road, a subject with which the Minister has been made familiar over several months.
I hope that the Minister will accept that the wrong wording of the title was unintentional on my part, and that the courtesy that I have extended to him covers the point. I want to avoid being accused of the same devious tactics that the Department of Transport has practised thus far in this sorry affair.
The Greater Manchester western and northern relief road has caused great anger, partly because of the nature of the beast and partly because of the secrecy surrounding its promotion. The Minister and others have drawn attention to so-called leaks of information about possible routes. They have accused activists of blighting property and they have tried to draw a series of red herrings across the debate. I shall try to generate more light than heat by raking over the embers of this unfortunate tale.
The relief road first appeared in the public domain as a schematic dotted line that ran through the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" in June 1989. During the following summer recess, my studies of the document got me worried about the dotted line, which dissected my constituency through its most sensitive environmental part—he village of Worsley in particular. In short, it put a line through a conservation area.
I set about tabling a long series of parliamentary questions in the hope of finding out the Department's intentions. The answers to those questions were models of civil service-speak. Although answers were given, they were, in the now hackneyed phrase, given with a degree of economy with the truth. What I found most unacceptable was the notion that, while a £300 million relief road was in prospect, the widening of the existing M62 was the principal focus for Department of Transport planners. It was only when the existence of the A556 improvements came to my attention that the scale of the problem for my constituents became apparent. This is where the major deception arises.
I have never been given a satisfactory explanation by the Minister or his predecessor of why a major motorway should be planned in three distinct phases. I cannot escape the conclusion that it was done to deceive the public. That became clearer to me when I discovered that the first section, the M6 to the M56, which was billed as an improvement to the A556, went out to public consultation as long ago as 1 November 1989. People believed that they were being consulted about a localised road improvement scheme. They were not disabused of that view and it was not until January 1990, when my parliamentary questions became public knowledge, that the Department of


Transport's real intentions were recognised. The tactic became clear and later in my speech I shall deal with its subsequent refinement.
The strategy was to prosecute the plan in three stages. The southern section was to be first, followed by the northern section. Then the middle section, which affects my constituency, was to be built. As soon as the two outer sections, dealt with months apart, were determined, the controversial middle section would have had its start and finish thoroughly circumscribed. Thankfully, with the cat well and truly out of the bag in January 1990, opposition groups sprang up all along the route and they are now conducting an intelligent and energetic campaign of opposition to the Department's intentions. My thanks and those of my constituents are due to councillors Davies and Stirling, who are leading forces in the Residents Against the Motorway group, and to Chris Gray, Ian Bailey, John Spink, David Cowpe and Bob Boyd who are working in various ways to present local opposition to the destructive intent of the Department. Their efforts deserve to be placed on the record and I am pleased to do that.
Having dealt with the secrecy and duplicity of the Department, I now turn to the question of need. My view, which is shared by many, is that the motorway that the Department is keen to promote is entirely unnecessary. If the £300 million, which will no doubt be more than doubled by the time of completion, were to be given to the local authorities to enable them to organise their own traffic management schemes, one justification would be removed at a stroke. At the same time, it would help if the Minister were to invest through local authorities and the passenger transport executive in decent 21st century public transport.
It might make more sense if the Minister's colleague further down Marsham street, the Secretary of State for the Environment, stopped the crazy building of peripheral housing schemes to be filled with city commuters. It would certainly be more sensible if sites closer to city centres were made more attractive. That would breathe life into decaying urban areas and obviate the need for millions of car journeys a year. That, in turn, would prevent the vandalism that is being proposed and which has already caused so much anguish.
I have been asked many times recently, "Why more motorways?" Why put at risk what little remaining woodland and open space we have in the north-west? What has happened to the Government's professed adherence to green policies? The Minister is better placed than Ito answer those questions, but it is my view that the problem of motorway demand' lies firmly in the Department of Transport which is gripped by roads mania. The Department has 12,500 road planners and only 125 public transport planners. No wonder the solutions are always to build more roads.
These new roads and the extra traffic that they are supposed to accommodate will cause serious damage to the local and global environment and they will undermine any pretence by the Government to promote environmental protection measures. The full forecast of traffic increase will be generated only if the roads are built. I reject the need for this road, as do most of my constituents. Experience of the past 20 years or more tells us that this type of motorway will significantly injure the amenity of the area.
Experience tells us also that the Department of Transport is an extremely slippery customer in its dealings

with the public. I have to refer only to the confidence trick that has been played on, and added to in dealings with, residents in the Farm lane area of my constituency. In the early 1960s, a bypass was built to avoid Eccles and Swinton. It was known always as the Eccles bypass. Over time plans changed or there were additions. That happened to such an extent that a fairly insignificant piece of road became part of the M62 trans-Yorkshire motorway. My constituents in the Farm lane area were never compensated properly for that construction, which took place by attrition. A bitter taste remains that will be significant in the battle to stop the latest piece of motorway madness.
I return briefly to leaks, information and disorientation. It is sad that much of the public knowledge of the Greater Manchester western and northern relief road has had to he gained through leaks. It is my duty, however, to puncture the official secrecy that exists, on whatever pretext that may be.
I freely admit that the latest piece of information does not affect my constituency, but it bears on the way in which the opposition is engaged. It is no secret that the protest groups to which I have referred are in regular contact. It is no secret also that each of them obtains information from a variety of sources, with sometimes surprising results. The latest piece of information is no exception. It seems that the consultants have produced an alternative route in one part of the northern section of the road. I understand that it includes a bizarre proposal to cut and cover through a neighbouring town.
I am interested in the politics that has led to an alternative route. I am certain that it involves an exercise in dividing the opposition. The intention is clear. The plan is to divide communities as much as possible all along the route and so dissipate the objections. This will not work. Throughout the route every constituency and every threatened part of each constituency contains a growing protest movement. The opposition is becoming more proficient and it seeks the same success as that which was enjoyed by objectors in London. The Minister knows about that because he represents a London constituency. After 10 years of struggle, massive motorway proposals were ditched, possibly for electoral reasons.
I shall conclude by posing four questions, which I hope the Minister will do his best to answer. First, when will the promised consultation with the public take place? Secondly, will there be an environmental impact assessment study? Thirdly, will the public be given choices of routes, and a further choice of no motorway at all? Fourthly, will the Minister contemplate my suggestion of improved public transport and local traffic management investment?

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): I am pleased that the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) has given me the opportunity once again of returning to the subject of transport and road infrastructure in Greater Manchester. I am disappointed that he has exemplified in his remarks his belief in the great conspiracy theory, in the dubious tactics of the Department of Transport, in secrecy, in disorientation, in duplicity and in confidence tricks. Those are all terms and


words that the hon. Gentleman used. They demonstrate that the hon. Gentleman is given to a certain amount of self-deception on those important issues.
I shall remind the House, including the hon. Gentleman, that the proposals for a Greater Manchester northern and western relief road are still at an early stage. The leaks that have taken place have been counterproductive in creating much unnecessary blight. The hon. Member was present on 17 December when I responded to the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg), whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber this evening. Obviously I have to cover some of the same ground that I covered then because the two constituencies are almost adjoining and are served largely by the same road network.
The major roads within the Worsley area are the M63 and M62 motorways, which together form the western section of the Manchester outer ring road. However the M62 fulfils a dual purpose. As part of the ring road it provides a route between the major centres of population in the Greater Manchester area. In addition, it forms an important link across the Pennines, connecting the three conurbations of Merseyside, Greater Manchester and west Yorkshire. The route occupies a fundamental place in our transportation network, carrying high volumes of traffic with a significant proportion being goods vehicles. This need to satify two discrete functions—as a long distance through route and as a more local distributor—has led to poor conditions for traffic, which are continuing to deteriorate. Delays, frustration, congestion and accidents are, I regret, far too commonplace.
The hon. Member for Worsley referred to a spurious analogy with the assessment studies in London. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in assuming that I represent a London constituency—I used to have the privilege of leading a London borough. The problems of ensuring that through traffic is taken out of London were resolved by the establishment of the M25, which is the largest and most effective bypass anywhere in the country. The roads that we are discussing in this debate fulfil a similar function around Manchester, at the same time enabling vehicles to travel from the Manchester conurbation and Merseyside across the Pennines to Yorkshire.
I have much that I could say about other issues in Manchester, but it is appropriate that I come to the principal issue which the hon. Gentleman raised, which was the M62. Our major study into the trans-Pennine route and the need for further capacity to relieve the M62 is well known. We expect to receive a consultant's report in the spring and an announcement will be made as soon as we have had the chance to consider the report's findings and recommendations.

Mr. David Sumberg: As my hon. Friend knows well, I am strongly opposed to all these planned motorway routes and am extremely concerned at the delay taking place in this consultation process and any inquiry which may be necessary. Many of my constituents find that their homes are completely blighted as a result of the route through the Whitefield part of my constituency, and, as the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) said, another route is proposed through Radcliffe. Can my hon. Friend give me any assurance about when the consultation process will take place so that my constituents will know

where they stand and also when there will be an inquiry if that is necessary? Until then my constituents cannot sell their homes and are facing the gravest possible difficulties.

Mr. Chope: We have not yet reached the stage of a consultation, because we have not yet published any proposals. Certain potential proposals which were being discussed on an informal, tentative and confidential basis with local authorities were leaked. As a result, they have been given a spurious authority which they should not properly enjoy, which has led people to think that there should be an early consultation.
My Department only consults on specific proposals, and it only brings forward proposals after the most careful consideration. It is only after such consideration that we can make clear proposals, after which I promise my hon. Friend that we shall consult on them as quickly as possible.

Mr. Lewis: Does not the Minister accept that 33 organisations—not just local authorities—were consulted? That is significant because some of us know where the leaks came from, and they did not come from local authorities. Does not the Minister also accept that as soon as "Roads for Prosperity" was understood—followed by a report on roads that gave more detail about it—whole districts became blighted? In my constituency, Worsley village became totally blighted because those two documents could be interpreted only as sending a brand new motorway through a small area that was already well and truly covered by motorways. Does not the Minister accept that proposition?

Mr. Chope: I do not accept that proposition. In "Roads for Prosperity" we stated our view that a new road was needed in the district. Consultants were then appointed to think about the proposals which, when properly considered by my Department, would, if deemed appropriate, be brought forward for public consultation. But the hon. Gentleman should recognise that many ideas for new roads are never brought forward for public consultation. If, prior to the plans being rejected without seeing the light of day, the public had seen them, that would have caused an enormous amount of unnecessary anguish for people who would have thought that their properties were threatened by them, even though the plans were never brought forward for consultation.
It is not for me to question the hon. Gentleman's motives, but he may have political motives. The consequence of premature disclosure of information put forward on a confidential basis—a system that operates effectively throughout the country—has resulted in much blight on the homes of people living in the district, which I very much regret.
The announcement on the consultant's report of the trans-Pennine route will be made as soon as we have had a chance to consider the report's findings and recommendations. Those are not expected to affect the case for undertaking improvements to the M62 or for the proposed Greater Manchester western and northern relief road. It is important to make that clear at the outset.
As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, we are just completing works on the M62 at Worsley between junctions 12 and 14. That is major resurfacing work, needed to repair a motorway that was simply worn out. I see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding in recognition of that fact. The road is worn out because it is so heavily used


by traffic. That is a sign of the pressures on the present motorway network in the Manchester district, which has some of the oldest sections of motorway in the country.
The proposed improvements to the M62 between junctions 12 and 18 are an interim measure only. They will not deal with forecast traffic growth. The relief road is designed to supplement, not replace, the M62 which, along that section, carries 130,000 vehicles a day. That amount of traffic is comparable with the busiest sections of the M25. In addition, completion of the outer ring road will not obviate the need for a new road. Constructon of the final section from Denton to Middleton will have no significant effect on flows on the M62 west of junction 18, and so will not affect the need for the relief road.
The hon. Gentleman attacked the Government for investing in new roads, but he is as aware as anybody that his hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has been campaigning for the early completion of the circular motorway round Manchester because he knows that, by investing in that motorway, much-needed relief will be given to his constituents. That confirms the odd attitude of Opposition Members to investment in new roads.

Mr. Lewis: rose——

Mr. Chope: No, I shall not give way.
We must look closer at the options for widening, particularly in the Worsley area, and to what extent that work may be accommodated within the general limits of the existing highway. We shall then determine what form any consultation about the widening should take. I hope to be able to make an announcement on at least part of that work later in the year.
The high levels of traffic to which I have referred are the result of increased levels of economic activity and prosperity. Traffic flows are predicted to grow by up to one third by the end of the 1990s and could well double by 2020. A responsible Government must face those forecasts and respond. Congestion reduces the efficiency and reliability of road transport for industry, and increases costs to consumers. It is also harmful to the environment, as slow-moving vehicles burn more fuel and therefore give off greater quantities of harmful emissions.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the Government are interested in not just investment in roads, but investment in public transport and its infrastructure. In Manchester we already have good examples of that investment in practice with the metrolink and the construction of the second terminal at Manchester airport with its new rail link. The metrolink is the first, new street-running rail system for three decades and the

Government are proud to be contributing more than £50 million to it. Manchester airport is Britain's third largest after Heathrow and Gatwick.

Mr. Lewis: We should be thinking about the next phase of the metrolink now. Some of us believe that that system should be brought out to places such as Worsley, as that would save a lot of unnecessary car journeys.
The M62 is worn out at the specific junctions to which the Minister referred because of the old specifications that were used. If we intend to reline and resurface motorways to new specifications, they should be adequate to deal with the existing levels of traffic.

Mr. Chope: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is already thinking ahead about further development of the metrolink. It is unrealistic to think that such investment could be a substitute for investment in the major road artery between Merseyside, the Greater Manchester conurbation and west Yorkshire. No one would be forgiving of a Government who ignored the obvious trends of increased traffic in that area and did not try to find a solution to that difficult problem. The Government recognise those problems.
We do not yet have proposals for the new road that we can submit for public consultation. Once proposals are published for consultation purposes, there will be ample opportunity for people to visit exhibitions, ask questions and give their views. I again give an assurance to the House that no firm decision on the scheme will be taken until public consultation has been held. That consultation process gives people the earliest practicable opportunity to have a say in the development of the scheme. We put great value on the views presented at this stage, which is in addition to the statutory opportunities for public input that will arise later. It is at that later stage, when orders are published, that statutory rights of objection may lead to consideration of the scheme at a local public inquiry before an independent inspector.
It is only after the Department's most careful considerations that we submit a draft route for public consultation. It is only after the most exhaustive procedures that we finally decide on a route. The hon. Member for Worsley and his constituents and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South and his constituents will have ample opportunity to participate to the full in that detailed consultation process

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.